thegreanvillepostbiasrating--2020-07-01--How ‘News’-Media Lie and Get Away With It

ots of U.S. invasions are based on blatant lies by the U.S. Government and its stenographic ‘ free press ’ ( which is just as controlled by America ’ s 600 billionaires as the Soviet Union ’ s press was controlled by its Communist Party ) , but this will discuss only one instance , which is especially well-documented : Five days later , The Times reporters learned that the tubes were in fact a subject of debate among intelligence agencies .
The misgivings appeared deep in an article on Page A13 , under a headline that gave no inkling @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( “ White House Lists Iraq Steps to Build Banned Weapons ” ) .
The Times gave voice to skeptics of the tubes on Jan. 9 , when the key piece of evidence was challenged by the International Atomic Energy Agency .
That challenge was reported on Page A10 ; it might well have belonged on Page A1 .
Related Coverage : Director General ’ s statement on Iraq to the IAEA Board of Governors on 9 September 2002 [ this being a republication of their notice three days earlier , on 6 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , 2002 – With reference to an article published today in the New York Times [ which , as usual , stenographically reported the Administration ’ s false allegations , which the IAEA was trying to correct in a way that would minimally offend the NYT and the U.S. President ] , the International Atomic Energy Agency would like to state that it has no new information on Iraq ’ s nuclear programme since December 1998 when its inspectors left Iraq [ and verified that no WMD remained there at that time ] @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in accordance with Security Council Resolution 687 and other relevant resolutions can the Agency draw any conclusion with regard to Iraq ’ s compliance with its obligations under the above resolutions relating to its nuclear activities .
It even linked to the following statement from the IAEA Director General amplifying it : Since December 1998 when our inspectors left Iraq , we have no additional information that can be directly linked without inspection to Iraq ’ s nuclear activities .
I should emphasize that it is only through resumption of inspections that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ any assurance regarding Iraq ’ s compliance with its obligations under these resolutions .
So , this was proof of the falsehood of Bush ’ s and Blair ’ s reference , on September 7th , to the IAEA , in which Bush-Blair were saying that , upon the authority of the IAEA itself , there was “ the new report … a report came out of the Atomic — the IAEA that they were six months away from developing a weapon .
I don ’ t know what more evidence we need.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ on 12 September 2002 , addressed the U.N. General Assembly , seeking authorization to invade : We will work with the U.N. Security Council for the necessary resolutions .
But the purposes of the United States should not be doubted .
The Security Council resolutions will be enforced — the just demands of peace and security will be met — or action will be unavoidable .
And a regime that has lost its legitimacy will also lose its power .
Events can turn in one of two ways : If we fail to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the people of Iraq will continue to live in brutal submission .
The regime will have new power to bully and dominate and conquer its neighbors , condemning the Middle East to more years of bloodshed and fear .
The regime will remain unstable — the region will remain unstable , with little hope of freedom , and isolated from the progress of our times .
With every step the Iraqi regime takes toward gaining and deploying the most terrible weapons , our own options to confront that regime will narrow .
And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ these weapons to terrorist allies , then the attacks of September the 11th would be a prelude to far greater horrors .
Bush failed to win any authorization to invade .
Saddam Hussein did not possess stockpiles of illicit weapons at the time of the U.S. invasion in March 2003 and had not begun any program to produce them , a CIA report concludes .
In fact , the long-awaited report , authored by Charles Duelfer , who advises the director of central intelligence on Iraqi weapons , says Iraq 's WMD program @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ended Iraq 's nuclear program after the 1991 Gulf War .
But America ’ s billionaires , by then , already had what they wanted .
None of them even so much as threatened any of the politicians whom they funded , and announced “ I ’ ll stop funding you unless you never do this again.
” And , so , the billionaires , and their ‘ news ’ -media , and the U.S. President , and the members of Congress who voted to invade , just continued on with the invasion @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , of Iraq .
As if this was even within America ’ s right to do .
The U.N. didn ’ t authorize it .
And none of of the international-war-criminal invading heads-of-state ( Bush and Blair especially ) was hanged for it , like the Nazis were at Nuremberg , who were hanged for “ aggressive war ” — the same thing that the U.S. and its allies now do routinely .
None has even apologized for it .
And , furthermore , the U.S. military still manages to get all of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ military to perpetrate invasions and destructions of countries such as of Iraq , and of Libya , and of Syria , and of Iran — all without U.N. authorization , and all being obviously invasions against countries that had never invaded the invading country ( these definitely were not defensive , but purely aggressive , invasions ) , and thus all of these invasions constitute international war crimes ( “ aggressive war ” — the chief crime which was being prosecuted at Nuremberg ) .
Last September 8 , I interviewed President Bush @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Rice .
I was pressing her on Iraqi President Saddam Hussein 's nuclear capabilities .
`` We know that he has the infrastructure , nuclear scientists to make a nuclear weapon , '' she told me .
`` And we know that when the inspectors assessed this after the Gulf War , he was far , far closer to a crude nuclear device than anybody thought -- maybe six months from a crude nuclear device . ''
Dr. Rice then said something that was ominous and made headlines around the world .
`` @ @ @ @ @ @ @ always be some uncertainty about how quickly he can acquire nuclear weapons .
But we do n't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud . ''
I thought of those comments this week following the statement from the chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix , acknowledging that no `` smoking gun '' has been found yet since the resumption of the weapons inspections .
This country didn ’ t learn a thing from the Nuremberg Tribunals .
We know it now , because this country has , in fact , become @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they all get away with it .
The slimy New York Times has plenty of company , and it ’ s all bad .
It ’ s 100 % bad .
And yet none of them even loses subscribers over that .
People still pay to be deceived .
Nothing was learned from the deceit of America about Iraq in 2002 and 2003 , not even after 18 years .
It ’ s as if nobody even cares .
Not only no apology , and no restitution , but no concern .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a national psychopath that pontificates to the rest of the world .
Victors ’ ‘ justice ’ has produced this .
Only real justice can replace it .

Eric Zuesse
L ots of U.S. invasions are based on blatant lies by the U.S. Government and its stenographic ‘free press’ (which is just as controlled by America’s 600 billionaires as the Soviet Union’s press was controlled by its Communist Party), but this will discuss only one instance, which is especially well-documented:
New York Times published an editorial headlined was an apology. They said that after having “studied the allegations of official gullibility and hype” regarding “the issue of Iraq’s weapons and possible Iraqi connections to international terrorists,” “we have found a number of instances of coverage that was not as rigorous as it should have been.” They claimed to have been deceived by a U.S. Government that had been deceived by foreigners. (They pretended that the invasion of Iraq didn’t originate in, and from, America: they were blaming foreigners, especially ones who were from Iraq, for America’s invasion of Iraq.) “Administration officials now acknowledge that they sometimes fell for misinformation from these exile sources. So did many news organizations — in particular, this one.” (So, they were apologizing for “many news organizations — in particular, this one,” implying that they hadn’t done anything out of the ordinary or especially worth apologizing for.) They asserted that “Editors at several levels who should have been challenging reporters and pressing for more skepticism were perhaps too intent on rushing scoops into the paper.” They were pushing the blame down to their employees, the reporting staff, their own hirees — away from themselves (much less the newspaper’s owners). The earliest example they cited of this was: On 26 May 2004, thepublished an editorial headlined “The Times and Iraq” , which seemed to apologize for something, but which wasn’t clear about what, specifically, was being apologized for, if thisan apology. They said that after having “studied the allegations of official gullibility and hype” regarding “the issue of Iraq’s weapons and possible Iraqi connections to international terrorists,” “we have found a number of instances of coverage that was not as rigorous as it should have been.” They claimed to have been deceived by a U.S. Government that had been deceived by foreigners. (They pretended that the invasion of Iraq didn’t originate in, and from, America: they were blaming foreigners, especially ones who were from Iraq, for America’s invasion of Iraq.) “Administration officials now acknowledge that they sometimes fell for misinformation from these exile sources. So did many news organizations — in particular, this one.” (So, they were apologizing for “many news organizations — in particular, this one,” implying that they hadn’t done anything out of the ordinary or especially worth apologizing for.) They asserted that “Editors at several levels who should have been challenging reporters and pressing for more skepticism were perhaps too intent on rushing scoops into the paper.” They were pushing the blame down to their employees, the reporting staff, their own hirees — away from themselves (much less the newspaper’s owners). The earliest example they cited of this was:
On Sept. 8, 2002, the lead article of the paper was headlined “U.S. Says Hussein Intensified Quest for A-Bomb Parts.” That report concerned the aluminum tubes that the administration advertised insistently as components for the manufacture of nuclear weapons fuel. The claim came not from defectors but from the best American intelligence sources available at the time. Still, it should have been presented more cautiously. There were hints that the usefulness of the tubes in making nuclear fuel was not a sure thing, but the hints were buried deep, 1,700 words into a 3,600-word article. Administration officials were allowed to hold forth at length on why this evidence of Iraq's nuclear intentions demanded that Saddam Hussein be dislodged from power: “The first sign of a ‘smoking gun,’ they argue, may be a mushroom cloud.”
Five days later, The Times reporters learned that the tubes were in fact a subject of debate among intelligence agencies. The misgivings appeared deep in an article on Page A13, under a headline that gave no inkling that we were revising our earlier view (“White House Lists Iraq Steps to Build Banned Weapons”). The Times gave voice to skeptics of the tubes on Jan. 9, when the key piece of evidence was challenged by the International Atomic Energy Agency. That challenge was reported on Page A10; it might well have belonged on Page A1.
We just heard the Prime Minister talk about the new report. I would remind you that when the inspectors first went into Iraq and were denied — finally denied access, a report came out of the Atomic — the IAEA that they were six months away from developing a weapon. I don’t know what more evidence we need [in order for Congress to authorize an invasion of Iraq].
PRIME MINISTER BLAIR: Absolutely right.
Then, as soon as the weekend was over, on Monday 9 September 2002, was issued by the IAEA the following:
Related Coverage: Director General’s statement on Iraq to the IAEA Board of Governors on 9 September 2002 [this being a republication of their notice three days earlier, on 6 Sep.].
Vienna, 06 September, 2002 – With reference to an article published today in the New York Times [which, as usual, stenographically reported the Administration’s false allegations, which the IAEA was trying to correct in a way that would minimally offend the NYT and the U.S. President], the International Atomic Energy Agency would like to state that it has no new information on Iraq’s nuclear programme since December 1998 when its inspectors left Iraq [and verified that no WMD remained there at that time]. Only through a resumption of inspections in accordance with Security Council Resolution 687 and other relevant resolutions can the Agency draw any conclusion with regard to Iraq’s compliance with its obligations under the above resolutions relating to its nuclear activities.
It even linked to the following statement from the IAEA Director General amplifying it:
Since December 1998 when our inspectors left Iraq, we have no additional information that can be directly linked without inspection to Iraq’s nuclear activities. I should emphasize that it is only through resumption of inspections that the Agency can draw any conclusion or provide any assurance regarding Iraq’s compliance with its obligations under these resolutions.
So, this was proof of the falsehood of Bush’s and Blair’s reference, on September 7th, to the IAEA, in which Bush-Blair were saying that, upon the authority of the IAEA itself, there was “the new report … a report came out of the Atomic — the IAEA that they were six months away from developing a weapon. I don’t know what more evidence we need.”
Washington Times, who headlined on 27 September 2002, lied — cooked up an IAEA ‘report’ that never actually existed. Because of the news-media’s ignoring the IAEA’s denial of the President’s statement, the author of the IAEA’s denial, Mark Gwozdecky, spoke again nearly three weeks later, by phone, with the only journalist who was interested, Joseph Curl of the, who headlined on 27 September 2002, “Agency Disavows Report on Iraq Arms” — perhaps that should instead have been “President Lied About ‘Saddam’s WMD’” — and Curl quoted Gwozdecky: “There’s never been a report like that [which Bush alleged] issued from this agency. … When we left in December ’98 we had concluded that we had neutralized their nuclear-weapons program. We had confiscated their fissile material. We had destroyed all their key buildings and equipment.” Other news-media failed to pick up Curl’s article. And, even in that article, there was no clear statement that the President had, in fact,— cooked up an IAEA ‘report’ that never actually existed.
denied, as early as September 6th, that they had issued any such “new report” at all. only the NYT) entirely ignored the IAEA’s denial (though it was not merely one bullet, but rapidly fired on four separate occasions, into the wilderness of America’s ‘news’-media). It was actually only propaganda-media, and they hid the fact that George W. Bush was lying. Bush had simply lied, and Blair seconded it, and the ‘news’-media stenographically accepted it, and broadcasted it to the public, and continued to do so, despite the IAEA’s having Virtually all of the alleged news-media (and nottheentirely ignored the IAEA’s denial (though it was not merely one bullet, but rapidly fired on four separate occasions, into the wilderness of America’s ‘news’-media). It was actually only propaganda-media, and they hid the fact that George W. Bush was lying.
Also on September 8th, which was a Sunday, the Bush Administration’s big guns were firing off against Iraq from the Sunday ‘news’ shows, and National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice delivered her famous “we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud” statement, which was clearly building upon the lying Bush allegation of the day before, that the International Atomic Energy Agency had just come up with this ominous “Atomic” “new report.”
Then, President Bush himself, on 12 September 2002, addressed the U.N. General Assembly, seeking authorization to invade:
We will work with the U.N. Security Council for the necessary resolutions. But the purposes of the United States should not be doubted. The Security Council resolutions will be enforced — the just demands of peace and security will be met — or action will be unavoidable. And a regime that has lost its legitimacy will also lose its power.
Events can turn in one of two ways: If we fail to act in the face of danger, the people of Iraq will continue to live in brutal submission. The regime will have new power to bully and dominate and conquer its neighbors, condemning the Middle East to more years of bloodshed and fear. The regime will remain unstable — the region will remain unstable, with little hope of freedom, and isolated from the progress of our times. With every step the Iraqi regime takes toward gaining and deploying the most terrible weapons, our own options to confront that regime will narrow. And if an emboldened regime were to supply these weapons to terrorist allies, then the attacks of September the 11th would be a prelude to far greater horrors.
Bush failed to win any authorization to invade.
New York Times editorial lied when it said on 26 May 2004 that the false ‘facts’ had been merely errors. They were instead policy — Government policy, carrying out the demands by some Republican billionaires, who had financed politicians such as George W. Bush and Dick Cheney and Condoleezza Rice, and whose firms advertised in the New York Times and other mainstream U.S. propaganda-media. The Democratic Party had its billionaires, too, and some of those likewise wanted this invasion — none of them was objecting to it. (New York Times was just part of this invade-Iraq crowd, every member of which was an agency for America’s billionaires — the same group of individuals Theeditorial lied when it said on 26 May 2004 that the false ‘facts’ had been merely errors. They were instead policy —policy, carrying out the demands by some Republican billionaires, who had financed politicians such as George W. Bush and Dick Cheney and Condoleezza Rice, and whose firms advertised in theand other mainstream U.S. propaganda-media. The Democratic Party had its billionaires, too, and some of those likewise wanted this invasion —of them was objecting to it. ( Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton helped to lead the effort in the U.S. Senate authorizing Bush to invade. Bernie Sanders in the House voted against it , and subsequently lost the Democratic Presidential nomination to both of them. Support by the billionaires is far more effective than honesty when running for a Party’s nomination to run as their nominee for a high federal office.) Thewas just part of this invade-Iraq crowd, every member of which was an agency for America’s billionaires — the same group of individuals whose heavy thumbs on the weights of the Parties that they finance choose each Party’s nominees and give the country its current two-Party (but one-aristocracy) dictatorship
NYT, CNN headlined A few months after this editorial from the, CNN headlined “Report: No WMD stockpiles in Iraq” and reported that,
Saddam Hussein did not possess stockpiles of illicit weapons at the time of the U.S. invasion in March 2003 and had not begun any program to produce them, a CIA report concludes.
In fact, the long-awaited report, authored by Charles Duelfer, who advises the director of central intelligence on Iraqi weapons, says Iraq's WMD program was essentially destroyed in 1991 and Saddam ended Iraq's nuclear program after the 1991 Gulf War.
But America’s billionaires, by then, already had what they wanted. None of them even so much as threatened any of the politicians whom they funded, and announced “I’ll stop funding you unless you never do this again.” And, so, the billionaires, and their ‘news’-media, and the U.S. President, and the members of Congress who voted to invade, just continued on with the invasion and occupation, and with the destruction, of Iraq. As if this was even within America’s right to do. The U.N. didn’t authorize it. And none of of the international-war-criminal invading heads-of-state (Bush and Blair especially) was hanged for it, like the Nazis were at Nuremberg, who were hanged for “aggressive war” — the same thing that the U.S. and its allies now do routinely. None has even apologized for it. And, furthermore, the U.S. military still manages to get all of the volunteers it wants for the U.S. military to perpetrate invasions and destructions of countries such as of Iraq, and of Libya, and of Syria, and of Iran — all without U.N. authorization, and all being obviously invasions against countries that had never invaded the invading country (these definitely were not defensive, but purely aggressive, invasions), and thus all of these invasions constitute international war crimes (“aggressive war” — the chief crime which was being prosecuted at Nuremberg).
before we invaded Iraq, CNN’s Wolf Blitzer bannered On 10 January 2003, which still was more than two monthswe invaded Iraq, CNN’s Wolf Blitzer bannered “Search for the ’smoking gun’” , and he wrote:
Last September 8, I interviewed President Bush's National Security Adviser, Dr. Condoleezza Rice. I was pressing her on Iraqi President Saddam Hussein's nuclear capabilities.
"We know that he has the infrastructure, nuclear scientists to make a nuclear weapon," she told me. "And we know that when the inspectors assessed this after the Gulf War, he was far, far closer to a crude nuclear device than anybody thought -- maybe six months from a crude nuclear device."
Dr. Rice then said something that was ominous and made headlines around the world.
"The problem here is that there will always be some uncertainty about how quickly he can acquire nuclear weapons. But we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud."
I thought of those comments this week following the statement from the chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix, acknowledging that no "smoking gun" has been found yet since the resumption of the weapons inspections.
On 17 March 2003, “Bush told journalists and weapons inspectors to leave Iraq immediately.” Blix complied, his team left, and the invasion started on March 20th. Bush’s March 17th speech stated that “Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.” Bush said that “The United Nations Security Council has not lived up to its responsibilities, so we will rise to ours.” He addressed the people of Iraq, and promised them, “We will help you to build a new Iraq that is prosperous and free.” America spent many trillions of dollars on the resulting invasion and military occupation of Iraq (and on the post-traumatic-stress-syndrome or “PTSD,” artificial limbs, and the many other medical problems, of America’s troops who survived the invasion). But the really catastrophic harms were done not to America, but to the people of Iraq. Iraq had never threatened to invade the United States, but America nonetheless boldly invaded and destroyed it. Was Bush just a better liar than Adolf Hitler, or was the Nuremberg Tribunal just victors’ ‘justice’?
Why hasn’t George W. Bush been hanged?
Why hasn’t Dick Cheney been hanged?
Why hasn’t Condoleezza Rice been hanged?
This country didn’t learn a thing from the Nuremberg Tribunals. We know it now, because this country has, in fact, become the Nazi Germany of today.
And they all get away with it.
The YouGov polling firm reports that George W. Bush is the second-most-popular living Republican political figure in America, at a net approval (approve minus disapprove) of +10% . For comparisons: Donald Trump is -13% . Hillary Clinton is -10% . Barack Obama is +24% . Bernie Sanders is +7% . Bill Clinton is +5% . Joe Biden is +2% . In other words: George W. Bush is the second-most liked Republican after Arnold Schwarzenegger (the most popular living politician of either Party), at +39% . There is no justice in America. Ever since 9/11, America has had international-war criminals occupy the White House, and none of them has even been charged with any crime, at all. They’ve gotten away with mass-murder in (and with starving economic-sanctions blockades against) foreign countries that never even had threatened the United States, in any way. What does that fact say about this country, a country which pontificates against all of its victim-nations, and offers no restitution to any of them, for so many enormous harms it caused there?
The slimy New York Times has plenty of company, and it’s all bad. It’s 100% bad. And yet none of them even loses subscribers over that. People still pay to be deceived.
Washington Post, and CNN, and MSNBC, etc., are now all ought to kill all invaders, who are military occupiers of their country), than that it is true. America’s mainstream ‘news’-media are deceivers on so many levels, the truth in any particular instance is only a drop into an ocean of lies. Especially in international ‘news’-reporting, lying is routine in America. But, regardless of that, today’s Russia isn’t much like the Soviet Union was, and yet today’s America is terribly much like what Nazi Germany was. And that fact simply can’t be published in America — not even for debate. Because it is too true. (Indeed: is any nation more of a The situation is so bad that when the New York Times , and, and CNN, and MSNBC, etc., are now all saying (or implying ) that Russia offered Taliban-linked fighters bounties to kill U.S. and UK troops who are occupying Afghanistan, I, personally, am more inclined to believe Russia’s assertion that the allegation is a lie (regardless of whether Afghansto kill all invaders, who are military occupiers of their country), than that it is true. America’s mainstream ‘news’-media are deceivers on so many levels, the truth in any particular instance is only a drop into an ocean of lies. Especially in international ‘news’-reporting, lying is routine in America. But, regardless of that, today’s Russia isn’t much like the Soviet Union was, and yet today’s America is terribly much like what Nazi Germany was. And that fact simply can’t be published in America — not even for debate. Because it istrue. (Indeed: is any nation more of a militarized and police-state than the U.S. is today ?)


thegreanvillepostbiasrating--2020-06-30--INTERVIEW WITH JOURNALIST BEN NORTON: MEDIA MYTHS VERSUS REALITY IN VENEZUELA

Ben describes some of the enthusiasm among Venezuelans for political engagement in democracy .
He also addresses some of the myths surrounding colectivos , which are self-defense organizations in communities in Venezuela .
Later in the show , Ben outlines “ Regime Change Inc , ” which are the forces that are deployed inside and outside Venezuela pushing for the overthrow of President Nicolas Maduro .
He discusses what Venezuelans would like the government to do with members of a right-wing opposition that are intent on destabilizing the country .
We wrap the show with some conversation about what may @ @ @ @ @ @ @ grid and the major power outages that occurred .
Click on the above player to listen to the interview or go here .
The American media , and the world , would be a damn sight better if they had just a dozen Ben Nortons working regularly on it .
When Norton was in Venezuela , it was not long after President Donald Trump ’ s administration tried to install opposition leader Juan Guaido as the country ’ s president .
Norton said it would be hard to overstate “ how ridiculous the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ There ’ s not that much violence happening , ” Norton recalled .
“ I didn ’ t see any violence when I was there .
I barely even saw police .
It ’ s just so surreal.
” “ I keep saying in interviews being in Venezuela only reminded me of how authoritarian my own government is here in the United States .
Because I ’ ve traveled throughout much of the world .
I ’ ve probably been to 30 countries or so .
I ’ ve been throughout Western Europe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Middle East .
There definitely are areas where you feel like the government is watching over you or is pretty authoritarian .
I never felt like that in Venezuela.
” Norton shared , “ We went to numerous right-wing protests in the eastern part of Caracas in a district known as Chicao , which is a rich , largely white area in the capital .
We went to these right-wing protests and I didn ’ t see a single cop at these protests .
Not one .
So this idea that , oh @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
They ’ re doing the exact opposite , and it ’ s actually very smart.
” In Brooklyn , Norton added , “ There ’ s a cop for every four or five protesters .
We live in a police state , and you don ’ t really think about that until you go out of the country to a place that ’ s smeared in the media as a police state but actually is really far from it.
” Norton said he did not really see any violence while in Venezuela @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
They are not engaged in guarimbas in the way that they were in 2014 or 2017 .
( Guarimbas involve barricades that are lit on fire to halt the flow of traffic in parts of Caracas or other cities . )
What has happened is the media typically ignores “ larger pro-government protests that happen in poor Chavista neighborhoods.
” Norton was not there when major power outages were happening in Venezuela .
However , when asked if electricity problems happen regularly , he said he didn ’ t witness regular electricity @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shortages , but Norton suggested the issues were no different than what many other Latin American countries experience daily .
Norton attempted to meet someone from colectivos , the left-wing self-defense organizations that are supporters of Chavismo .
He found they were reluctant to talk to any “ gringo journalists , ” which he could understand .
But the “ idea that they ’ re just roaming around and attacking people—it ’ s so ridiculous.
” “ Of course , colectivos exist .
And as the name suggests they ’ re collectives .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ who get together and who organize their communities and also who defend their communities , ” Norton described .
Colectivos largely exist as a response to violence that has occurred regularly in Venezuela for the past couple of decades .
This includes right-wing groups that are fairly nihilistic , wear masks , and sometimes participate in guarimbas .
Norton emphasized how anyone who visits Venezuela can see there is major popular enthusiasm among the grassroots for remaking their society .
“ You can see that very clearly in the barrios , in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Bolivarian revolution , there are direct democratic structures that exist , ” Norton said .

If you would like to support the show and help keep us going strong, please become a subscriber on our Patreon page
J
Ben describes some of the enthusiasm among Venezuelans for political engagement in democracy. He also addresses some of the myths surrounding colectivos, which are self-defense organizations in communities in Venezuela.
Later in the show, Ben outlines “Regime Change Inc,” which are the forces that are deployed inside and outside Venezuela pushing for the overthrow of President Nicolas Maduro. He discusses what Venezuelans would like the government to do with members of a right-wing opposition that are intent on destabilizing the country.
We wrap the show with some conversation about what may have happened with Venezuela’s electric grid and the major power outages that occurred.
Click on the above player to listen to the interview or go here.
The American media, and the world, would be a damn sight better if they had just a dozen Ben Nortons working regularly on it.
When Norton was in Venezuela, it was not long after President Donald Trump’s administration tried to install opposition leader Juan Guaido as the country’s president.
Norton said it would be hard to overstate “how ridiculous the media coverage is of Venezuela.”
“There’s not that much violence happening,” Norton recalled. “I didn’t see any violence when I was there. I barely even saw police. It’s just so surreal.”
“I keep saying in interviews being in Venezuela only reminded me of how authoritarian my own government is here in the United States. Because I’ve traveled throughout much of the world. I’ve probably been to 30 countries or so. I’ve been throughout Western Europe, Latin America, part of the Middle East. There definitely are areas where you feel like the government is watching over you or is pretty authoritarian. I never felt like that in Venezuela.”
Norton shared, “We went to numerous right-wing protests in the eastern part of Caracas in a district known as Chicao, which is a rich, largely white area in the capital. We went to these right-wing protests and I didn’t see a single cop at these protests. Not one. So this idea that, oh, the Maduro regime is cracking down. They’re doing the exact opposite, and it’s actually very smart.”
In Brooklyn, Norton added, “There’s a cop for every four or five protesters. We live in a police state, and you don’t really think about that until you go out of the country to a place that’s smeared in the media as a police state but actually is really far from it.”
Norton said he did not really see any violence while in Venezuela. The right-wing opposition is mostly peaceful. They are not engaged in guarimbas in the way that they were in 2014 or 2017. (Guarimbas involve barricades that are lit on fire to halt the flow of traffic in parts of Caracas or other cities.)
What has happened is the media typically ignores “larger pro-government protests that happen in poor Chavista neighborhoods.”
Norton was not there when major power outages were happening in Venezuela. However, when asked if electricity problems happen regularly, he said he didn’t witness regular electricity problems.
There were issues with water shortages, but Norton suggested the issues were no different than what many other Latin American countries experience daily.
Norton attempted to meet someone from colectivos, the left-wing self-defense organizations that are supporters of Chavismo. He found they were reluctant to talk to any “gringo journalists,” which he could understand.
But the “idea that they’re just roaming around and attacking people—it’s so ridiculous.”
“Of course, colectivos exist. And as the name suggests they’re collectives. They are voluntary groups of socialists, who get together and who organize their communities and also who defend their communities,” Norton described.
Colectivos largely exist as a response to violence that has occurred regularly in Venezuela for the past couple of decades. This includes right-wing groups that are fairly nihilistic, wear masks, and sometimes participate in guarimbas.
Norton emphasized how anyone who visits Venezuela can see there is major popular enthusiasm among the grassroots for remaking their society.
“You can see that very clearly in the barrios, in the neighborhoods in Venezuela. Thanks to the Bolivarian revolution, there are direct democratic structures that exist,” Norton said.


thegreanvillepostbiasrating--2020-06-30--To mask or not to mask, that’s the hell of a question

^5000The mainstream imperialist media lie CONSTANTLY .
Literally 24/7 .
And it 's getting worse .
All of them do @ @ @ @ @ , the newspapers , the movies .
The internet .
No exceptions .
The corporate @ @ @ @ @ totalitarian .
CBS does it .
NBC does it .
ABC does it .
CNN @ @ @ @ @ it .
NPR does it .
And of course the NYTimes and WaPo do it @ @ @ @ @ '' voices telling you the same lies .
Enough to convince anyone .

Please make sure these dispatches reach as many readers as possible. Share with kin, friends and workmates and ask them to do likewise.
Denis Rancourt
NOTE: In this medical news section we try to give our readers information about interesting and promising developments on the fight against this coronavirus (later we will extend this platform to all major medical conditions), but readers must keep in mind that we are often forced to publish materials originating within the US-style capitalist healthcare industry in which profits and not wellness is the main driver for action or inaction.
R
espected voices, not to mention long-held cultural habits (as in Asia), continue to clash on the issue of mask-wearing during viral epidemics,, whether they be the common cold, influenza or the more dreaded SARS family of viruses, of which Covid-19 is the latest manifestation. Here's more food for thought, but no KO punch yet by either side.
AGAINST
ANTI-MASKERS: RIGHT OR SELFISH?
FOR
Do Masks Really Protect Against Covid?
The Jimmy Dore Show
James Patrick Anthony Dore is an American stand-up comedian and political commentator best known for hosting The Jimmy Dore Show.
Jun 21, 2020


thegreanvillepostbiasrating--2020-06-30--Russophobic disinfo op continues: New York Times Takes Anti-Russian Hysteria to New Level with Repor

Russophobic disinfo op continues: New York Times Takes Anti-Russian Hysteria to New Level with Report on Russian ‘Bounty’ for US Troops in Afghanistan

The New York Times published an article claiming that Russia was paying out monetary bounties to the Taliban to kill US troops in Afghanistan .
There ’ s just one problem — none of what they reported was true .
The New York Times published an article claiming that Russia was paying out monetary bounties to the Taliban to kill US troops in Afghanistan .
There ’ s just one problem — none of what they reported was true .
s news reporting goes , the New York Times article alleging that a top-secret unit within Russian military intelligence , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the Taliban for every US soldier killed in Afghanistan , was dynamite .
The story was quickly “ confirmed ” by the Washington Post , the Wall Street Journal and other newspapers , and went on to take social media by storm .
Twitter was on fire with angry pundits , former officials , and anti-Trump politicians ( and their respective armies of followers ) denouncing President Trump as a “ traitor ” and demanding immediate action against Russia .
There was just one problem — nothing in the New York Times @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is no difference between the original reporting conducted by the New York Times , and the “ confirming ” reports published by the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal .
All of the reports contain caveats such as “ if confirmed ” and “ if true , ” while providing no analysis into the potential veracity of the information used to sustain the report — alleged debriefs of Afghan criminals and militants — or the underpinning logic , or lack thereof , of the information itself .
For its part , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , noting that the report “ clearly demonstrates low intellectual abilities of US intelligence propagandists who have to invent such nonsense instead of devising something more credible.
” The Taliban have likewise denied receiving any bounties from the Russians for targeting American soldiers , noting that with the current peace deal , “ their lives are secure and we don ’ t attack them.
” Even more telling is the fact that the current Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe has come out to contradict a key element of the New York Times @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the intelligence in question .
“ I have confirmed that neither the president nor the vice president were ever briefed on any intelligence alleged by the New York Times in its reporting yesterday , ” Ratcliffe said in a statement .
“ The New York Times reporting , and all other subsequent news reports about such an alleged briefing are inaccurate.
” And one more tiny problem : Trump confirmed there was no such briefing , too .
Perhaps the biggest clue concerning the fragility of the New York Times ’ report is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about sourcing — “ The intelligence assessment is said to be based at least in part on interrogations of captured Afghan militants and criminals.
” That sentence contains almost everything one needs to know about the intelligence in question , including the fact that the source of the information is most likely the Afghan government as reported through CIA channels .
There was a time when the US military handled the bulk of detainee debriefings in Afghanistan .
This changed in 2014 , with the signing of the Bilateral Security Agreement .
This @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or detaining Afghans , or to operate detention facilities in Afghanistan .
As a result , the ability of the US military to interface with detainees has been virtually eliminated , making the Pentagon an unlikely source of the information used by the New York Times in its reporting .
The CIA , however , was not covered by this agreement .
Indeed , the CIA , through its extensive relationship with the National Directorate of Security ( NDS ) , is uniquely positioned to interface with the NDS through every phase of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ systemic debriefing .
Like any bureaucracy , the CIA is a creature of habit .
Henry ‘ Hank ’ Crumpton , who in the aftermath of 9/11 headed up the CIA ’ s operations in Afghanistan , wrote that After 2014 , the term “ US law enforcement officers ” is effectively replaced by “ Afghan intelligence officers ” — the NDS .
But the CIA mission remained the same — to exploit captives for intelligence and operational leads .
The Trump administration has lobbied for an expanded mission for the CIA-backed NDS @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a counterterrorism force that would keep Islamic State ( IS , formerly ISIS ) and Al-Qaeda from gaining a foothold in Afghanistan once US and foreign troops completed their planned withdrawal in 2021 .
But the CIA has raised objections to such a plan , noting that the NDS and other CIA-controlled assets were completely dependent upon US military air power and other combat service support resources , and that any attempt to expand the CIA ’ s covert army in Afghanistan following a US military withdrawal would end in disaster .
Having @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to keep the US engaged in Afghanistan is not beyond the pale .
Which brings up the issue of Russian involvement .
In September 2015 , the Taliban captured the northern Afghan city of Konduz , and held it for 15 days .
This sent a shockwave throughout Russia , prompting Moscow to reconsider its approach toward dealing with the Afghan insurgency .
Russia began reaching out to the Taliban , engaging in talks designed to bring the conflict in Afghanistan to an end .
Russia was driven by other interests as well @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Vladimir Putin ’ s special representative for Afghanistan , “ the Taliban interest objectively coincides with ours ” in the fight against Islamic State , which in the summer of 2014 had captured huge tracts of land in Syria and Iraq , including the city of Mosul , Iraq ’ s second largest .
By 2017 , Afghan and US intelligence services had assembled a narrative of Russian assistance to the Taliban which included the provision of advanced weaponry , training , and financial support .
While Russia denied providing any direct military @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the Taliban were the best way to deal with the growing threat of Islamic State .
But even if the US reports were correct , and Russia was angling for a Taliban victory in Afghanistan , the last policy Russia would logically pursue would be one that had the US remain in Afghanistan , especially after pushing so hard for a negotiated peace .
Russia ’ s interests in Afghanistan were — and are — best served by Afghan stability , the antithesis of the Afghan reality while the US and NATO @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Afghanistan — not keeping the US in Afghanistan — is the Russian position , and any CIA officer worth his or her salt knows this .
It does not take a rocket scientist to read between the lines of the New York Times ’ thinly sourced report .
The NDS , with or without CIA knowledge or consent , generated detainee-based intelligence reports designed to create and sustain a narrative that would be supportive of US military forces remaining in Afghanistan past 2021 .
The CIA case officer ( s ) handling @ @ @ @ @ @ @ CIA Headquarters which provide the gist of the allegations — that Russia has placed a bounty on US soldiers .
But there is no corroboration , nothing that would allow this raw “ intelligence ” to be turned into a product worthy of the name .
This doesn ’ t mean that someone in the bowels of the CIA with an axe to grind against Trump ’ s plans to withdraw from Afghanistan , or who was opposed to Trump ’ s efforts to normalize relations with Russia , didn ’ t try @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Indeed , a finished “ product ” may have made its way to the National Security Council staff — and elsewhere — where it would have been given the treatment it deserved , quickly discarded as unsubstantiated rumor unworthy of presidential attention .
At this point in time , frustrated by the inattention the “ system ” gave to the “ intelligence , ” some anonymous official contacted the New York Times and leaked the information , spinning it in as nefarious a way as possible .
The New York Times blended @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reporting on the GRU to produce a completely fabricated tale of Russian malfeasance designed to denigrate President Trump in the midst of a hotly contested reelection bid .
Too far-fetched ?
This assessment is far more fleshed out with fact and logic than anything the New York Times or its mainstream media mimics have proffered .
And lest one thinks the GrayLady is above manufacturing news to sustain support for a war , the name Judith Miller , and the topic of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction , should put that to rest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Times alleging the existence of a Russian bounty on the lives of US troops in Afghanistan is cut from the same piece of cloth as its pre-war Iraq drivel .
As was the case with Iraq , the chattering class is pushing these new lies on an American audience pre-programmed to accept at face value any negative reporting on Russia .
This is the state of what passes for journalism in America today , and it ’ s not a pretty sight .
Note to readers : please click the share buttons above @ @ @ @ @ @ @ your email lists .
Crosspost on your blog site , internet forums .
etc .

The New York Times published an article claiming that Russia was paying out monetary bounties to the Taliban to kill US troops in Afghanistan. There’s just one problem — none of what they reported was true.
The New York Times published an article claiming that Russia was paying out monetary bounties to the Taliban to kill US troops in Afghanistan. There’s just one problem — none of what they reported was true.
A
s news reporting goes, the New York Times article alleging that a top-secret unit within Russian military intelligence, or GRU, had offered a bounty to the Taliban for every US soldier killed in Afghanistan, was dynamite. The story was quickly “confirmed” by the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal and other newspapers, and went on to take social media by storm. Twitter was on fire with angry pundits, former officials, and anti-Trump politicians (and their respective armies of followers) denouncing President Trump as a “traitor” and demanding immediate action against Russia.
There was just one problem — nothing in the New York Times could be corroborated. Indeed, there is no difference between the original reporting conducted by the New York Times, and the “confirming”reports published by the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal. All of the reports contain caveats such as “if confirmed” and “if true,” while providing no analysis into the potential veracity of the information used to sustain the report — alleged debriefs of Afghan criminals and militants — or the underpinning logic, or lack thereof, of the information itself.
For its part, the Russian government has vociferously denied the allegations, noting that the report “clearly demonstrates low intellectual abilities of US intelligence propagandists who have to invent such nonsense instead of devising something more credible.” The Taliban have likewise denied receiving any bounties from the Russians for targeting American soldiers, noting that with the current peace deal, “their lives are secure and we don’t attack them.”
Even more telling is the fact that the current Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe has come out to contradict a key element of the New York Times’ report—that the president was briefed on the intelligence in question. “I have confirmed that neither the president nor the vice president were ever briefed on any intelligence alleged by the New York Times in its reporting yesterday,” Ratcliffe said in a statement. “The New York Times reporting, and all other subsequent news reports about such an alleged briefing are inaccurate.”
And one more tiny problem: Trump confirmed there was no such briefing, too.
Perhaps the biggest clue concerning the fragility of the New York Times’ report is contained in the one sentence it provides about sourcing — “The intelligence assessment is said to be based at least in part on interrogations of captured Afghan militants and criminals.” That sentence contains almost everything one needs to know about the intelligence in question, including the fact that the source of the information is most likely the Afghan government as reported through CIA channels.
There was a time when the US military handled the bulk of detainee debriefings in Afghanistan. This changed in 2014, with the signing of the Bilateral Security Agreement. This agreement prohibits the US military from arresting or detaining Afghans, or to operate detention facilities in Afghanistan. As a result, the ability of the US military to interface with detainees has been virtually eliminated, making the Pentagon an unlikely source of the information used by the New York Times in its reporting.
The CIA, however, was not covered by this agreement. Indeed, the CIA, through its extensive relationship with the National Directorate of Security (NDS), is uniquely positioned to interface with the NDS through every phase of detainee operations, from initial capture to systemic debriefing.
Like any bureaucracy, the CIA is a creature of habit. Henry ‘Hank’ Crumpton, who in the aftermath of 9/11 headed up the CIA’s operations in Afghanistan, wrote that
“[t]he Directorate of Operations (DO) should not be in the business of running prisons or temporary detention facilities. The DO should focus on its core mission: clandestine intelligence operations. Accordingly, the DO should continue to hunt, capture, and render targets, and then exploit them for intelligence and ops leads once in custody. The management of their incarceration and interrogation, however, should be conducted by appropriately experienced US law enforcement officers because that is their charter and they have the training and experience.”
After 2014, the term “US law enforcement officers” is effectively replaced by “Afghan intelligence officers”— the NDS. But the CIA mission remained the same — to exploit captives for intelligence and operational leads.
The Trump administration has lobbied for an expanded mission for the CIA-backed NDS and other militia forces to serve as a counterterrorism force that would keep Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS) and Al-Qaeda from gaining a foothold in Afghanistan once US and foreign troops completed their planned withdrawal in 2021. But the CIA has raised objections to such a plan, noting that the NDS and other CIA-controlled assets were completely dependent upon US military air power and other combat service support resources, and that any attempt to expand the CIA’s covert army in Afghanistan following a US military withdrawal would end in disaster. Having the NDS fabricate or exaggerate detainee reports to keep the US engaged in Afghanistan is not beyond the pale.
Which brings up the issue of Russian involvement. In September 2015, the Taliban captured the northern Afghan city of Konduz, and held it for 15 days. This sent a shockwave throughout Russia, prompting Moscow to reconsider its approach toward dealing with the Afghan insurgency. Russia began reaching out to the Taliban, engaging in talks designed to bring the conflict in Afghanistan to an end. Russia was driven by other interests as well. According to Zamir Kabulov, President Vladimir Putin’s special representative for Afghanistan, “the Taliban interest objectively coincides with ours” in the fight against Islamic State, which in the summer of 2014 had captured huge tracts of land in Syria and Iraq, including the city of Mosul, Iraq’s second largest.
By 2017, Afghan and US intelligence services had assembled a narrative of Russian assistance to the Taliban which included the provision of advanced weaponry, training, and financial support. While Russia denied providing any direct military support to the Taliban, it maintained that the Taliban were the best way to deal with the growing threat of Islamic State. But even if the US reports were correct, and Russia was angling for a Taliban victory in Afghanistan, the last policy Russia would logically pursue would be one that had the US remain in Afghanistan, especially after pushing so hard for a negotiated peace. Russia’s interests in Afghanistan were — and are — best served by Afghan stability, the antithesis of the Afghan reality while the US and NATO remain engaged. Getting the US out of Afghanistan — not keeping the US in Afghanistan — is the Russian position, and any CIA officer worth his or her salt knows this.
It does not take a rocket scientist to read between the lines of the New York Times’ thinly sourced report. The NDS, with or without CIA knowledge or consent, generated detainee-based intelligence reports designed to create and sustain a narrative that would be supportive of US military forces remaining in Afghanistan past 2021. The CIA case officer(s) handling these reports dutifully submit cables back to CIA Headquarters which provide the gist of the allegations — that Russia has placed a bounty on US soldiers. But there is no corroboration, nothing that would allow this raw “intelligence”to be turned into a product worthy of the name.
This doesn’t mean that someone in the bowels of the CIA with an axe to grind against Trump’s plans to withdraw from Afghanistan, or who was opposed to Trump’s efforts to normalize relations with Russia, didn’t try to breathe life into these detainee reports. Indeed, a finished “product” may have made its way to the National Security Council staff — and elsewhere — where it would have been given the treatment it deserved, quickly discarded as unsubstantiated rumor unworthy of presidential attention.
At this point in time, frustrated by the inattention the “system” gave to the “intelligence,” some anonymous official contacted the New York Times and leaked the information, spinning it in as nefarious a way as possible. The New York Times blended the detainee reports and its own previous reporting on the GRU to produce a completely fabricated tale of Russian malfeasance designed to denigrate President Trump in the midst of a hotly contested reelection bid.
Too far-fetched? This assessment is far more fleshed out with fact and logic than anything the New York Times or its mainstream media mimics have proffered. And lest one thinks the GrayLady is above manufacturing news to sustain support for a war, the name Judith Miller, and the topic of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, should put that to rest. The reporting by the New York Times alleging the existence of a Russian bounty on the lives of US troops in Afghanistan is cut from the same piece of cloth as its pre-war Iraq drivel. As was the case with Iraq, the chattering class is pushing these new lies on an American audience pre-programmed to accept at face value any negative reporting on Russia. This is the state of what passes for journalism in America today, and it’s not a pretty sight.
*
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.
Scott Ritter is a former US Marine Corps intelligence officer. He served in the Soviet Union as an inspector implementing the INF Treaty, in General Schwarzkopf’s staff during the Gulf War, and from 1991-1998 as a UN weapons inspector. Follow him on Twitter is a former US Marine Corps intelligence officer. He served in the Soviet Union as an inspector implementing the INF Treaty, in General Schwarzkopf’s staff during the Gulf War, and from 1991-1998 as a UN weapons inspector. Follow him on Twitter @RealScottRitter
Featured image is from OneWorld


thegreanvillepostbiasrating--2020-06-30--Jimmy Dore reminds us never to trust cruise missile liberals like Bill Maher

Wow .
Cruise missile liberal Bill Maher went full-on neocolonialist in his latest interview with white-nationalist Ann Coulter .
Maher @ @ @ @ @ in Venezuela and declared `` This is our backyard !
`` , citing the imperialist @ @ @ @ @ And this kind of celeb passes for progressive in the US , and gets warm @ @ @ @ @ .
Bill Maher in Bed with Trump on Venezuela !

NOW IN THE TOP 1% OF AMAZON’S ASIA TITLES. WITH A SPECIAL FOREWORD BY PEPE ESCOBAR. 568 PP, ILLUSTRATED.
The bestseller on China that everyone is talking about!
Available in eBook edition (Kindle or ePub). Fits all devices.
GET YOUR COPY TODAY. CLICK HERE OR ON THE IMAGE ABOVE JUST $9.99 USD


thegreanvillepostbiasrating--2020-06-30--Russia Unveiled a Spectacular Monument Dedicated to Soviet Warriors – Rzhev Memorial to Soviet

Russia Unveiled a Spectacular Monument Dedicated to Soviet Warriors - Rzhev Memorial to Soviet Soldiers A monument to the hundreds of thousands of Soviet soldiers who fought near Rzhev has been unveiled in the Tver Region today. They fought so that we could live in peace, work, love, create value and feel proud of Russia, a country with a unique civilisation and a great culture that unites the destinies, hopes and aspirations of many generations of our forefathers. As their successors, we carry on along this path in our centuries-long history, knowing that we are up to the most challenging tasks even in a critical situation. Friends, over the recent period I have addressed you several times on issues of great importance for all of us and for the entire country. I decided to do this once again ahead of the nationwide vote on amendments to our country’s Constitution.


thegreanvillepostbiasrating--2020-07-01--Russia Bounty-Hunter Story Another Pulp Fiction Release

he main peddlers of the alleged Russian-sponsored bounty-hunter scheme in Afghanistan against U.S. troops are the New York Times , Washington Post and CNN .
All three have excelled in publishing a series of pulp fiction-style stories over the past four years to discredit President Trump and demonize Russia .
From Russian meddling in elections to Putin having blackmail on “ agent Trump ” thanks to hookers in a Moscow hotel .
And much more besides .
That dubious record of propaganda-as-journalism serves as foghorn alert about the latest yarn without even delving into the details .
The story “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ claiming that anonymous “ U.S .
officials ” informed the outlet that Russian military intelligence were paying militants in Afghanistan to assassinate American troops , and that President Trump had been briefed on the matter as far back as March but didn ’ t do anything about it .
In “ follow-up ” reports , the Washington Post and CNN are reporting that the alleged Russian bounty-hunter scheme did result in American casualties .
Trump is being accused of treachery for allegedly ignoring warnings on security , and that – conveniently – piles @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Congress to get tough on Moscow .
Democrat presidential rival Joe Biden has fulminated that it is a “ truly shocking ” dereliction of duty by Trump whose presidency , says Biden , is “ a gift ” to Russian leader Vladimir Putin .
The Democrat vows to confront Moscow if he is elected to the White House in November .
Republican lawmakers have also jumped on the bandwagon assailing Trump for treacherous neglect over allegedly not acting on the alleged intelligence .
( Apologies to readers for the repetition of “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for clarity and factualness . )
As the story gathers some legs , it soon runs at breakneck speed .
British media reports are quoting anonymous British security officials who “ confirm ” that the U.S. intelligence claims about Russia bounty-hunting in Afghanistan .
What ’ s more , the British “ sources ” are saying that the alleged Russian operation is being run by the same military intelligence team that allegedly organized the alleged poisoning of double agent Sergei Skripal in Salisbury in March 2018 .
Pulp fiction stories are thus being @ @ @ @ @ @ @ latest episode in Afghanistan .
That ’ s like building an edifice from straws .
Denials and declined comments can be revealing .
Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov has called the bounty-hunter reports “ lies ” .
The Russia foreign ministry said it was an “ unsophisticated fabrication ” .
A spokesman for the Taliban militants in Afghanistan derided the U.S. claims , saying the militants did not need any foreign help to defeat the Americans .
President Trump in his usual fashion slammed the media reports as another “ Russia hoax ” .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the alleged intelligence and neither was Vice President Mike Pence of White House chief of staff Mark Meadows .
John Ratcliffe , the U.S. Director of National Intelligence , has poured cold water on the reports , saying that Trump was not briefed .
The Pentagon , as well as the CIA and National Security Council , have declined to make any comment on the allegations .
It seems significant that the New York Times described its sources as “ U.S .
officials who were briefed on the matter ” and not as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ That way , the newspaper avoids any potentially embarrassing rebuttal from intelligence agencies .
The choice of words “ U.S .
officials ” is suitably vague and uncompromising .
A second dodgy detail is the claim that the alleged “ recovery of large amounts of American cash ” in a raid by U.S. special forces on some Taliban base provided the basis for the concept that Russian military intelligence was organizing the scheme for paying militants to assassinate American troops .
It is also claimed that U.S. intelligence gained information on the pay-for-kill @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” .
That ’ s an incredible admission of how poor the basis for the report and its claims are .
Seriously , finding a suitcase of U.S. dollars in a Taliban hideout is cited as implicating the involvement of Russian hit squads .
It is speculated that the Kremlin is waging a “ shadow war ” against the U.S. in Afghanistan as “ revenge ” for Washington ’ s sponsoring of the mujahideen forerunners of the Taliban who dealt defeat to Soviet troops during the 1980s .
A propaganda wheeze always has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ appear to easily ( too easily ) flow from one to the other as desired by the orchestrator .
What Joe Biden and others should find “ truly shocking ” is the flimsy detail that supposedly holds up a “ blockbuster ” story .
It has the hallmark of an electioneering ploy to undermine Trump ’ s support among rank-and-file members of the U.S. armed forces .
They are seen as a bedrock for Trump votes in the November elections .
What better way to alienate the military ranks than accuse Trump of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Russian-assisted murder of troops in Afghanistan ?
On top of that , to boot , there is also the desired bipartisan outrage among Democrats and Republican lawmakers demanding more sanctions to “ punish ” Russia and “ hold Putin to account ” .

Finian Cunningham
T
he main peddlers of the alleged Russian-sponsored bounty-hunter scheme in Afghanistan against U.S. troops are the New York Times, Washington Post and CNN. All three have excelled in publishing a series of pulp fiction-style stories over the past four years to discredit President Trump and demonize Russia.
From Russian meddling in elections to Putin having blackmail on “agent Trump” thanks to hookers in a Moscow hotel. And much more besides.
That dubious record of propaganda-as-journalism serves as foghorn alert about the latest yarn without even delving into the details.
The story “broke” on Friday with the Times claiming that anonymous “U.S. officials” informed the outlet that Russian military intelligence were paying militants in Afghanistan to assassinate American troops, and that President Trump had been briefed on the matter as far back as March but didn’t do anything about it.
In “follow-up” reports, the Washington Post and CNN are reporting that the alleged Russian bounty-hunter scheme did result in American casualties. Trump is being accused of treachery for allegedly ignoring warnings on security, and that – conveniently – piles the pressure on the White House and the Congress to get tough on Moscow.
Democrat presidential rival Joe Biden has fulminated that it is a “truly shocking” dereliction of duty by Trump whose presidency, says Biden, is “a gift” to Russian leader Vladimir Putin. The Democrat vows to confront Moscow if he is elected to the White House in November.
Republican lawmakers have also jumped on the bandwagon assailing Trump for treacherous neglect over allegedly not acting on the alleged intelligence. (Apologies to readers for the repetition of “alleged”, but it is necessary for clarity and factualness.)
As the story gathers some legs, it soon runs at breakneck speed. British media reports are quoting anonymous British security officials who “confirm” that the U.S. intelligence claims about Russia bounty-hunting in Afghanistan. What’s more, the British “sources” are saying that the alleged Russian operation is being run by the same military intelligence team that allegedly organized the alleged poisoning of double agent Sergei Skripal in Salisbury in March 2018.
Pulp fiction stories are thus being referenced supposedly as confirming precedents for the latest episode in Afghanistan. That’s like building an edifice from straws.
Denials and declined comments can be revealing. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov has called the bounty-hunter reports “lies”. The Russia foreign ministry said it was an “unsophisticated fabrication”.
A spokesman for the Taliban militants in Afghanistan derided the U.S. claims, saying the militants did not need any foreign help to defeat the Americans.
President Trump in his usual fashion slammed the media reports as another “Russia hoax”. He says he was never briefed on the alleged intelligence and neither was Vice President Mike Pence of White House chief of staff Mark Meadows.
John Ratcliffe, the U.S. Director of National Intelligence, has poured cold water on the reports, saying that Trump was not briefed.
The Pentagon, as well as the CIA and National Security Council, have declined to make any comment on the allegations.
It seems significant that the New York Times described its sources as “U.S. officials who were briefed on the matter” and not as “U.S. intelligence” sources. That way, the newspaper avoids any potentially embarrassing rebuttal from intelligence agencies. The choice of words “U.S. officials” is suitably vague and uncompromising.
A second dodgy detail is the claim that the alleged “recovery of large amounts of American cash” in a raid by U.S. special forces on some Taliban base provided the basis for the concept that Russian military intelligence was organizing the scheme for paying militants to assassinate American troops. It is also claimed that U.S. intelligence gained information on the pay-for-kill plot from “interrogation of captured militants”.
That’s an incredible admission of how poor the basis for the report and its claims are.
Seriously, finding a suitcase of U.S. dollars in a Taliban hideout is cited as implicating the involvement of Russian hit squads.
It is speculated that the Kremlin is waging a “shadow war” against the U.S. in Afghanistan as “revenge” for Washington’s sponsoring of the mujahideen forerunners of the Taliban who dealt defeat to Soviet troops during the 1980s.
A propaganda wheeze always has tell-tale gas-lighting effects whereby thoughts and speculation appear to easily (too easily) flow from one to the other as desired by the orchestrator.
What Joe Biden and others should find “truly shocking” is the flimsy detail that supposedly holds up a “blockbuster” story.
It has the hallmark of an electioneering ploy to undermine Trump’s support among rank-and-file members of the U.S. armed forces. They are seen as a bedrock for Trump votes in the November elections. What better way to alienate the military ranks than accuse Trump of turning a blind eye to intelligence reports of Russian-assisted murder of troops in Afghanistan?
On top of that, to boot, there is also the desired bipartisan outrage among Democrats and Republican lawmakers demanding more sanctions to “punish” Russia and “hold Putin to account”.


thegreanvillepostbiasrating--2020-07-01--John Bolton – Traitor to Common Decency

John Bolton – Traitor to Common Decency

T here are few men in modern American history more venal than Former National Security Adviser John Bolton .
Calling Bolton a relic of the Cold War in his outlook on foreign policy is a kindness .
Bolton is a dangerous and pathetic creature whose entire life is an example of how incomplete men with a talent for violence can rise in a late-stage cesspit of political corruption .
He is simply someone who has never been in a fight in his life who lusts for the power to kill , main and destroy anyone who dares challenge him .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ dubious distinction of being able to act out in the real world on more than one occasion .
This will , hopefully , be the last article I write about his cretin because once his last fifteen minutes of fame are used up attacking President Trump in slavish interview after interview supporting his book , Bolton will be finished in Washington D.C .
This book is his gold watch for being a lifelong soldier in the service of the American empire and the neoconservative/neoliberal dream of global conquest .
$ 2 million , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ victory lap for a life spent in pursuit of the subjugation of those he considers sub-human .
And while Bolton spent the balance of his career in D.C. working nominally for Republicans , his lust for war served both parties equally well .
That war lust was in service of the empire itself when Bolton was fired , and he turned against President Trump .
He was welcomed as a Hero of the Resistance by Democrats intent on impeaching the President after he was fired last year , one of the few good @ @ @ @ @ @ @ years at the helm of U.S. foreign policy .
Given his involvement with Fiona Hill and Eric Chiaramella , the whistleblower whose testimony created the impeachment charges , Bolton really could be thought of as the architect of that process .
So , it ’ s no surprise that his book is welcomed as the gossip event of the summer by the media .
But remember , this is a guy who refused to testify against Trump for Jerry Nadler and Adam Schiff and that ’ s because he would have never stood @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ultimately , John Bolton is a coward .
And he ’ s the worst kind of coward .
He ’ s the kind of man who deals underhandedly while hiding behind rhetoric in controlled environments to pursue his fever dreams of suppressing the Untermensch .
What we know now , thanks to Bolton ’ s unwillingness to keep his trap shut , is that things were as we suspected while he was in the White House .
Every event that occurred was an excuse for Bolton to tell Trump to go to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ led up to that trough to drink , he backed away causing Bolton ’ s mustache the worst case of sexual frustration .
Worse than that , Bolton sabotaged any hope of détente with Russia , North Korea and improving the situation in the Middle East .
While he was right to hate Jared Kushner ’ s Deal of the Century for Israel/Palestine , he was instrumental in getting Trump to stay in Syria rather than turn over what ’ s left of its suppression to the people who actually want it to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In the end Bolton is really the best example I can come up with for the monolithic thinking that permeates D.C .
Despite his best instincts , Trump took Bolton on because the potential talent pool is so thin .
Anyone with original ideas , such as Kentucky Senator Rand Paul , are more valuable in their current position rather than coming into an administration that is hamstrung by a permanent bureaucracy unwilling to change , or in open revolt .
There ’ s no profit for them to make the jump even @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has been in effect since before Trump took office when he wouldn ’ t stand behind his first National Security Adviser , Michael Flynn , who is still embroiled in the worst The Swamp can throw at a person .
Progressives , liberals and anti-imperalists I implore you to stop allying with this creature of The Swamp in his quest to do damage to a president you hate .
Because by doing so you are strengthening the very people who are the architects of the empire you believe you are fighting against .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ wrote this book for .
He didn ’ t write it for you .
Bolton will ultimately be a foot note in the history books .
A man whose only claim to fame was failing to allow a president to make some peace with North Korea and set the U.S. on a path to complete alienation with the rest of the world .
Because of the neoconservatives ’ intense war lust , as embodied by Bolton , it pushed Trump , already an arch-mercantilist , even farther along the path of using economic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stage .
But , as I ’ ve been saying for years now , that is a strategy just as ruinous in the long run for the U.S. as Bolton ’ s cowardice urging use of a military — which he refused to serve in — to do his dirty work for him .
These are both expressions of an empire which refuses to accept that it is in decline .
And it has invited the chaos now evident in cities all across the U.S. as our wealth has been squandered on endless @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a regulatory police state at home .
That helped pushed the militarization of our local police , further putting them in conflict with a domestic population growing more desperate and reactionary on both sides of the political aisle .
Bolton ’ s projection of all the U.S. ’ s ills onto countries with no real ability to harm us physically ultimately was not only his undoing with Trump but the U.S. ’ s undoing as a leader of the post-WWII order .

T here are few men in modern American history more venal than Former National Security Adviser John Bolton. Calling Bolton a relic of the Cold War in his outlook on foreign policy is a kindness.
Bolton is a dangerous and pathetic creature whose entire life is an example of how incomplete men with a talent for violence can rise in a late-stage cesspit of political corruption.
He is simply someone who has never been in a fight in his life who lusts for the power to kill, main and destroy anyone who dares challenge him. A pathology he’s had the dubious distinction of being able to act out in the real world on more than one occasion.
This will, hopefully, be the last article I write about his cretin because once his last fifteen minutes of fame are used up attacking President Trump in slavish interview after interview supporting his book, Bolton will be finished in Washington D.C.
This book is his gold watch for being a lifelong soldier in the service of the American empire and the neoconservative/neoliberal dream of global conquest. $2 million, a handful of residuals and a final victory lap for a life spent in pursuit of the subjugation of those he considers sub-human.
President Trump’s recent tweet about Bolton:
And while Bolton spent the balance of his career in D.C. working nominally for Republicans, his lust for war served both parties equally well. That war lust was in service of the empire itself when Bolton was fired, and he turned against President Trump.
He was welcomed as a Hero of the Resistance by Democrats intent on impeaching the President after he was fired last year, one of the few good moments in Trump’s nearly four years at the helm of U.S. foreign policy. Given his involvement with Fiona Hill and Eric Chiaramella, the whistleblower whose testimony created the impeachment charges, Bolton really could be thought of as the architect of that process.
So, it’s no surprise that his book is welcomed as the gossip event of the summer by the media. But remember, this is a guy who refused to testify against Trump for Jerry Nadler and Adam Schiff and that’s because he would have never stood up to cross-examination.
This is because, ultimately, John Bolton is a coward. And he’s the worst kind of coward. He’s the kind of man who deals underhandedly while hiding behind rhetoric in controlled environments to pursue his fever dreams of suppressing the Untermensch.
What we know now, thanks to Bolton’s unwillingness to keep his trap shut, is that things were as we suspected while he was in the White House. Every event that occurred was an excuse for Bolton to tell Trump to go to war. And every time Trump was led up to that trough to drink, he backed away causing Bolton’s mustache the worst case of sexual frustration.
Worse than that, Bolton sabotaged any hope of détente with Russia, North Korea and improving the situation in the Middle East. While he was right to hate Jared Kushner’s Deal of the Century for Israel/Palestine, he was instrumental in getting Trump to stay in Syria rather than turn over what’s left of its suppression to the people who actually want it to continue – Israel and Saudi Arabia.
In the end Bolton is really the best example I can come up with for the monolithic thinking that permeates D.C. Despite his best instincts, Trump took Bolton on because the potential talent pool is so thin.
Anyone with original ideas, such as Kentucky Senator Rand Paul, are more valuable in their current position rather than coming into an administration that is hamstrung by a permanent bureaucracy unwilling to change, or in open revolt.
There’s no profit for them to make the jump even if they wanted to.
This point has been in effect since before Trump took office when he wouldn’t stand behind his first National Security Adviser, Michael Flynn, who is still embroiled in the worst The Swamp can throw at a person.
Progressives, liberals and anti-imperalists I implore you to stop allying with this creature of The Swamp in his quest to do damage to a president you hate. Because by doing so you are strengthening the very people who are the architects of the empire you believe you are fighting against.
Because that’s who John Bolton wrote this book for.
He didn’t write it for you.
Bolton will ultimately be a foot note in the history books. A man whose only claim to fame was failing to allow a president to make some peace with North Korea and set the U.S. on a path to complete alienation with the rest of the world.
Because of the neoconservatives’ intense war lust, as embodied by Bolton, it pushed Trump, already an arch-mercantilist, even farther along the path of using economic pressure to force change on the world stage.
But, as I’ve been saying for years now, that is a strategy just as ruinous in the long run for the U.S. as Bolton’s cowardice urging use of a military — which he refused to serve in — to do his dirty work for him.
These are both expressions of an empire which refuses to accept that it is in decline. And it has invited the chaos now evident in cities all across the U.S. as our wealth has been squandered on endless wars for regime change overseas while building a regulatory police state at home.
That helped pushed the militarization of our local police, further putting them in conflict with a domestic population growing more desperate and reactionary on both sides of the political aisle.
Bolton’s projection of all the U.S.’s ills onto countries with no real ability to harm us physically ultimately was not only his undoing with Trump but the U.S.’s undoing as a leader of the post-WWII order.


thegreanvillepostbiasrating--2020-07-01--The Room Where It Didn’t Happen: Inside John Bolton’s Brain

hen President Donald Trump belatedly but wisely fired John Bolton as his National Security Adviser in September 2019 , I wrote in these columns that Bolton relinquished power with all the grace of a cockroach .
Now , as I also predicted , he has published his memoirs turning on his benefactor with all the loyalty and gratitude of a scorpion .
There is indeed nothing unexpected whatsoever in Bolton exceptionably badly written – and yet for that very reason , extremely entertaining – new book .
It certainly will go down in history as the worst written , gloriously @ @ @ @ @ @ @ memoir since Hillary Clinton ’ s account of her own hilariously bungled 2016 presidential campaign “ What Happened ” ( which of course should have had a question mark to complete the title as Clinton revealed that she too didn ’ t have a clue what had really happened and why. )
.
For just like Clinton , Bolton is a self-absorbed , narcissistic psychopath – always the surest path to power , respect and fawning praise from the media in Washington .
And unlike Kevin Spacey ’ s President Frank Underwood in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Cards , ” he is an entirely unselfconscious and unaware one .
Also like Hillary Clinton ( who may yet be elected President of the United States ) , Bolton brilliantly confirms the legitimacy of the Dunning-Kruger Effect in psychiatry .
It is always the most stupid , incompetent and useless people who are the most convinced that they are the most brilliant .
Bolton ’ s new memoir , “ The Room Where It Happened , ” reflects this sublime egotistical and unimaginably narcissistic dream state from beginning to end .
No @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hilariously revealing .
For John Bolton , during his 17 months as National Security Adviser to the President of the United States , supposedly one of the most powerful and important positions on the planet , was never in The Room Where It Happened .
He wa salways kicked into the nearest convenient toilet – the Room Where It Didn ’ t Happen .
Bolton was only at the center of affairs in his own imagination : In all his career that was the only thing which never faltered , never let him @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in that other dimension which the rest of humanity frustratingly and inexplicably ( to Bolton ) calls “ The Real World , ” it was a very different story .
For no National Security Adviser in U.S. history has been so un-influential and inept , and so cut out from the actual decision-making process as John Bolton .
It is wrong to suggest , as many have done , that Bolton owed his rise primarily to the Israel Lobby and the financial clout of casino mogul Sheldon Adelson .
Without doubt they both @ @ @ @ @ @ @ owned his inflated reputation in Trump ’ s eyes to his endless appearances on the Fox News Channel .
If any other human being deserves the primary blame for his bizarre rise , it is clearly the late Roger Ailes , CEO of Fox News for 20 years from 1996 to 2016 who promoted him so shamelessly for so long .
But even Trump quickly discovered that to be a superficially impressive talking head on a platform dedicated to promoting him , Bolton did not need to actually have a functioning brain .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ fiasco , failure and stupidity as national security adviser was clear at the time and his memoir adds nothing new to or surprising to it .
Nor is there anything original or worthwhile in Bolton ’ s supposedly frank and outspoken endless insults and slanders of Trump ’ s Secretary of Defense James Mattis , Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and current incumbent Mike Pompeo .
All they reveal is that Bolton was bound to be an utter failure in any position of government because he could not work with or respect anyone @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
What this book does do is to reveal the Real John Bolton – an egotistical idiot who imagines that he is always right about everything and that everyone else is unimaginably stupid and inferior to him and therefore always wrong about everything .
In Bolton ’ s imagination the Room where he is always the Only Room That Matters .
He is incapable of realizing that he has always been shunted aside into the nearest convenient lavatory so everyone else can get on with serious business .
Far from being the wisest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ imagines himself to be , the value of his testimony comes because he is so stupid , so innocent and so sublimely unaware of what is really happening .
This extraordinary naiveté is what will make Bolton ’ s memoir of enduring significance .
It is an unintentional comic masterpiece .
A thousand years from now , “ The Room Where It Happened ” may yet survive as a compelling explanation for why the great world-spanning American Empire collapsed so suddenly .
For no society that elevates a figure of such exceptional comic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the fantasy of his supposed “ brilliance ” for so long can possibly endure .

Martin Sieff
W
hen President Donald Trump belatedly but wisely fired John Bolton as his National Security Adviser in September 2019, I wrote in these columns that Bolton relinquished power with all the grace of a cockroach. Now, as I also predicted, he has published his memoirs turning on his benefactor with all the loyalty and gratitude of a scorpion.
There is indeed nothing unexpected whatsoever in Bolton exceptionably badly written – and yet for that very reason, extremely entertaining – new book. It certainly will go down in history as the worst written, gloriously inept and therefore unconsciously revealing American political memoir since Hillary Clinton’s account of her own hilariously bungled 2016 presidential campaign “What Happened” (which of course should have had a question mark to complete the title as Clinton revealed that she too didn’t have a clue what had really happened and why.).
For just like Clinton, Bolton is a self-absorbed, narcissistic psychopath – always the surest path to power, respect and fawning praise from the media in Washington. And unlike Kevin Spacey’s President Frank Underwood in the Netflix TV series “House of Cards,” he is an entirely unselfconscious and unaware one.
Also like Hillary Clinton (who may yet be elected President of the United States), Bolton brilliantly confirms the legitimacy of the Dunning-Kruger Effect in psychiatry. It is always the most stupid, incompetent and useless people who are the most convinced that they are the most brilliant.
Bolton’s new memoir, “The Room Where It Happened,” reflects this sublime egotistical and unimaginably narcissistic dream state from beginning to end. No title could be more inappropriate and more hilariously revealing.
For John Bolton, during his 17 months as National Security Adviser to the President of the United States, supposedly one of the most powerful and important positions on the planet, was never in The Room Where It Happened. He wa salways kicked into the nearest convenient toilet – the Room Where It Didn’t Happen. Bolton was only at the center of affairs in his own imagination: In all his career that was the only thing which never faltered, never let him down and never failed him.
But in that other dimension which the rest of humanity frustratingly and inexplicably (to Bolton) calls “The Real World,” it was a very different story.
For no National Security Adviser in U.S. history has been so un-influential and inept, and so cut out from the actual decision-making process as John Bolton.
It is wrong to suggest, as many have done, that Bolton owed his rise primarily to the Israel Lobby and the financial clout of casino mogul Sheldon Adelson. Without doubt they both played their part, but Bolton clearly owned his inflated reputation in Trump’s eyes to his endless appearances on the Fox News Channel. If any other human being deserves the primary blame for his bizarre rise, it is clearly the late Roger Ailes, CEO of Fox News for 20 years from 1996 to 2016 who promoted him so shamelessly for so long. But even Trump quickly discovered that to be a superficially impressive talking head on a platform dedicated to promoting him, Bolton did not need to actually have a functioning brain.
Bolton’s extraordinary record of unrelieved fiasco, failure and stupidity as national security adviser was clear at the time and his memoir adds nothing new to or surprising to it.
Nor is there anything original or worthwhile in Bolton’s supposedly frank and outspoken endless insults and slanders of Trump’s Secretary of Defense James Mattis, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and current incumbent Mike Pompeo. All they reveal is that Bolton was bound to be an utter failure in any position of government because he could not work with or respect anyone and no one could ever trust him.
What this book does do is to reveal the Real John Bolton – an egotistical idiot who imagines that he is always right about everything and that everyone else is unimaginably stupid and inferior to him and therefore always wrong about everything.
In Bolton’s imagination the Room where he is always the Only Room That Matters. He is incapable of realizing that he has always been shunted aside into the nearest convenient lavatory so everyone else can get on with serious business.
Far from being the wisest and shrewdest of policymakers, as Bolton imagines himself to be, the value of his testimony comes because he is so stupid, so innocent and so sublimely unaware of what is really happening.
This extraordinary naiveté is what will make Bolton’s memoir of enduring significance. It is an unintentional comic masterpiece.
A thousand years from now, “The Room Where It Happened” may yet survive as a compelling explanation for why the great world-spanning American Empire collapsed so suddenly. For no society that elevates a figure of such exceptional comic ineptitude to such eminence, after swallowing the fantasy of his supposed “brilliance” for so long can possibly endure.