Friday, October 14, 2016
US Trotskyism: Behind the Socialist Masquerade
But prior to Rahami’s arrest, Bloomberg reporter Jennifer Epstein speculated wildly as to who was behind the attack. “Are you concerned that this weekend’s attacks or potential incidents in the coming weeks might be an attempt by ISIS or ISIS sympathizers, or really any other group, maybe the Russians, to influence the presidential race in some way, and presumably drive votes to Donald Trump, who is, as you’ve said before, widely seen as perhaps being somebody who they would be more willing to – or see as an easier person to be against?” she asked Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton on Monday. This isn’t the first time that the mainstream American media has made baseless accusations about a Russian role in shaping the upcoming US elections. Hacks into the Democratic National Committee have been attributed to the Kremlin without any evidence, and multiple efforts have been made to link Republican candidate Donald Trump with Russian President Vladimir Putin. Last month, the Washington Post warned of a potential “October surprise,” claiming that Moscow may release doctored intelligence in an effort to smear Clinton. “Perhaps they’ll show that the Clinton Foundation has been funding the Islamic State, or they’ll have Hillary Clinton admitting that she didn’t care about those Americans who died in Benghazi after all,” reads the op-ed by Dana Milbank. Rather than outright refute Epstein’s absurd insinuation that Russia was behind the bombing, Clinton danced around the subject. “I don’t want to speculate,” she said, before shifting into a discussion on defeating Daesh. The Washington Post, New York Times, CNN, Wired, and dozens of other outlets have pushed the narrative, launched by the Clinton campaign, that Russia has attempted to influence the US presidential election and that it favors the Republican candidate.
Clinton made the comments during her first media interview since being interrogated by the FBI for more than three hours on Saturday.
The former secretary of state spoke with NBC’s Chuck Todd on Meet the Press over the phone, telling him firstly she had been “eager” for the FBI interrogation and was “pleased to have the opportunity to assist the department in bringing its review to a conclusion.”
The FBI grilling came more than a year after Clinton admitted using a private email server for official emails, hundreds of which were classified, during her time as America’s top diplomat.
Clinton refused to comment, however, on news reports that a decision not to file charges against her would be announced in the coming weeks: “I am not going to comment… I have no knowledge of any timeline – this is entirely up to the department.”
Lynch, who was nominated to her current position by President Barack Obama in 2014, declared earlier this week she would accept recommendations from career prosecutors and the bureau she oversees in response to backlash for her ‘Sky Harbor summit’ with the former president on Monday.
Lynch said the meeting was purely “social” with grandchildren as the main topic. The two go way back after ‘Grandpa Bill’ appointed her as a US attorney in 1999 during his presidency.
Hillary Clinton echoed Lynch’s words during her Meet the Press interview, telling Todd she first heard about the incident from the news and described it as “a short, chance meeting at an airport tarmac.”
She laughed off the idea that her husband and the Attorney General discussed the Department of Justice’s review of her email probe.
“Both of their planes, as I understand it, were landing on the same tarmac at about the same time, and the Attorney General’s husband was there, they said hello, they talked about grandkids, which is very much on our minds these days, golf, their mutual friend, former Attorney General Janet Reno, it was purely social,” the former New York Senator said.
When asked if she thought her husband should have known better, she replied, “Well, I think hindsight’s 20/20. Both the attorney general and my husband have said that they wouldn’t do it again even though it was, from all accounts that I have heard and seen, an exchange of pleasantries. But obviously, no one wants to see any untoward conclusions drawn, and they said they would not do it again.”
An all-white, all-female panel of political commentators speaking with Todd after he aired his Clinton interview slammed the Phoenix meeting.
Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein appeared on CNN’s Sunday talk show “Reliable Sources,” but was not asked about the email probe, instead talking about her Green New Deal, which would “create millions of jobs by transitioning to 100% clean renewable energy by 2030.”
Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson weighed in on the controversy over Trump’s controversial tweet about Clinton.
The former New Mexico governor told CNN’s program “State of the Union” that Trump “has said 100 things that would disqualify anyone else from running for president but it doesn’t seem to affect him. The stuff he’s saying is just incendiary. It’s racist.”
Hillary Clinton Destabilized Libya so the West Could ‘Exploit the Country’
As the United States begins to warn of the growing threat of Daesh in Libya, political analyst Hafsa Kara speaks to Radio Sputnik’s Loud & Clear about Washington’s role in destabilizing the North African nation – and the personal involvement of Democratic presidential frontrunner Hillary Clinton.
Speaking before the anti-Daesh coalition in Rome, US Secretary of State John Kerry said that the terrorist organization was being defeated in Syria and Iraq, but gaining ground in Libya – a scenario for which the US and NATO bear responsibility.
Much of the blame for Libya’s chaos can be placed directly on then US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, currently the Democratic Party’s presidential frontrunner for the 2016 election.
“She was the flagbearer, if you will, of the NATO operation,” Kara says. “Hillary Clinton was very much in favor it, and she applauded it and she supported it, and she sort of sold it to the US public…She is very central to the ouster of Gaddafi and the consequence chaos that ensued.
“And it’s utterly shameful that the person currently running for the highest office in the US is someone who gleefully celebrated the lynching and the extrajudicial assassination of a 70-year-old man,” she adds, referring to former Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi.
While the West bombed Libya on the pretense of protecting civilians, the true aim of the campaign may have been more self-serving.
“The endgame was always designed to benefit US interests, and that was primarily the goal regardless of how many people died.”
At the time of his ousting, Gaddafi was helping Africa to become a more independent continent, free from the influence of imperialism.
“When you think about it, Africa is the wealthiest continent on the planet, and without African natural resources, almost all of Western industries couldn’t function,” Kara says. “A destroyed Libya, which is incredibly oil- and gas-rich…is actually a much, much better source for Western corporations to exploit the country and region…”
While Secretary Kerry has expressed shock that Daesh is gaining a foothold in Libya, its growth should have come as no surprise.
“Wherever the US has spread or has expanded…that is where ISIS has actually thrived. So it is no surprise that as a result of not only the US, to be honest, but of the Western bombing campaign of Libya, that ISIS, and organizations that are affiliated to it, have actually thrived in Libya.”
As the anti-Daesh coalition meets, is there any hope that it can restore order to the nations it has helped destroy?
“I hope they don’t do anything,” Kara says. “Whatever these countries will do in the region will make a bad situation worse.
“Any further Western intervention will make a very bad situation far, far worse.”
By James Thompson
Glen Ford makes some excellent points in his article “Rand Paul makes more sense than the Democrats’ left champion.” It is true that Hillary Clinton’s conduct as Secretary of State is indefensible. She presided, along with Pres. Obama and the vile right wing demagogues in the Republican Party, over the destruction of a sovereign nation, Libya, and the assassination of its head of state, Moammar Gadhafi.
Some people, including the reprehensible Donald Trump, have argued correctly that Libya would be better off with Gadhafi in power rather than the chaos which is Libya today.
Although Bernie Sanders has a long history of opposing aggressive, imperialist US wars of intervention and occupation, Mr. Ford slams him for pledging to support the Democratic Party even if he does not achieve the nomination for president. Would Mr. Ford prefer for Sen. Sanders to support the Republican Party nominee? If so, which Republican nominee does Mr. Ford favor? Or perhaps Mr. Ford would prefer for Sen. Sanders to pledge his support to the Green party nominee. However, from the article it appears that even though Mr. Ford does not endorse Rand Paul for president, it appears possible he might prefer Sen. Sanders to pledge his support to Sen. Paul. Let’s examine these possibilities.
Although the world outside of the United States of Anarchy recognizes clearly that Donald Trump is an opportunistic demagogue, he is one of the front runners in the Republican Party race for the presidential nomination. On some foreign policy issues, his positions are pretty sound. He has said that he opposes the US involvement in the Middle East and calls for the US to be hands-off Russia and not to interfere with Russia’s attempt to stamp out the evil ISIL and other terrorist organizations in the Middle East. At the same time, Mr. Trump is virulently anti-immigrant and has proposed ridiculous schemes to build walls around the United States to keep immigrants out. Anyone with any memory left recalls that his abominable TV show made him famous for two words “you’re fired!”
Does Mr. Ford want Sen. Sanders to support this demagogue who is anti-worker and anti-immigrant and dances to the tunes that Adolf Hitler used to whistle?
Mr. Trump’s main rival is Ben Carson, an African-American neurosurgeon. Dr. Carson is a reprehensible racist who routinely attacks Islam. Does Mr. Ford think that Dr. Carson should be endorsed by Sen. Sanders? Does Mr. Ford think that Dr. Carson could bring peace to the Middle East?
Of course, the rest of the runner-up’s for the Republican nomination are all barbaric right-wingers who advocate war and hatred. Perhaps one of these cretins strike Mr. Ford’s fancy.
Perhaps Mr. Ford thinks that Sen. Sanders should endorse the Green party nominee, Dr. Jill Stein, for president if Mr. Sanders doesn’t get the Democratic Party nomination. Although she is a principled candidate, the Green party has ballot access in less than 50% of the states and therefore cannot win the 2016 presidential election under any circumstances. In my humble opinion, Karl Marx would make a very principled presidential candidate. However, unfortunately he cannot be elected since he is dead.
Now we must consider Mr. Ford’s favorite, Dr. Rand Paul. Dr. Paul, like Mr. Trump, has some laudable foreign policy positions. Although Mr. Ford speaks of former Secretary of State Clinton’s evil, he fails to tell the whole story of Dr. Paul. Dr. Rand Paul, like his father, Dr. Ron Paul, are both darlings of the Libertarian Party. The Libertarian Party is an organization of right-wing anarchists. Although they oppose US involvement in foreign wars, which is admirable, they have a few skeletons in their closet. They oppose the federal government in all its forms. That means that they are opposed to public education, healthcare, housing and any federal programs that might drain a few dollars from the oceans of money compiled by the bourgeoisie. They are opposed to any regulation of the excesses of corporations. Indeed, some sources indicate they are closet supporters of slavery. Does this mean that Mr. Ford thinks that an individual who is a closet supporter of slavery is better than Sen. Sanders whose campaign has championed the economic interests of the 99%?
Although the US political situation may be viewed as chaotic and anarchic at best, Mr. Ford’s commentary is not helpful to the interests of the working class and only serves to obfuscate the issues central to the class struggle.
On Thursday, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton testified before Congress about the 2012 terrorist attack in Benghazi. But Patricia Smith, the mother of the one of the victims, likely won’t be satisfied with any of Clinton’s answers.
Sean Smith was one of the four Americans killed during the 2012 terrorist attack in Libya. Ahead of Hillary Clinton’s testimony before the House committee on Benghazi, CNN landed an interview with Smith’s, mother, Patricia Smith.
“She has not called me,” Smith said, referring to Clinton. “She has not contacted me. She has not given me any information, except to tell me that I am not a member of the immediate family and I do not need to know.”
But she became especially irate after being shown a clip of Clinton’s earlier testimony.
“She’s lying!” Smith said. “She’s absolutely lying.”
Smith reiterated her frustrations to Sky News on Thursday.
“Why wasn’t there security for my son and the ambassador and the other guys? There was supposed to be security,” she said.
Smith also claimed that her son warned her before the attack about his own suspicions.
“The night before, he called me and he said ‘mum there’s trouble here…there’s people walking around and taking pictures of everything. Something’s going to happen.'”
“I’m calling Hillary a boldfaced liar,” she added.
Thursday marks the eighth congressional panel held to investigate the Benghazi attacks. While the probes did unveil Clinton’s problematic use of a private email server, it has done little to find her guilty of any wrongdoing in relation to the Libya incident.
Many have accused the committee of being politically motivated, especially after comments made by House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy earlier this month.
“Everybody thought Hillary Clinton was unbeatable,” McCarthy told Fox News, touting his own credentials for being House Speaker. “But we put together a Benghazi special committee, a select committee.
“What are her numbers today? Her numbers are dropping.”
The committee maintains that it feels Clinton could have done more to prevent the attack.