Aletho News


Star Wars 2.0: Pentagon at Full Throttle Toward Militarization of Space

Sputnik – 27.01.2017

US Air Force Gen. John E. Hyten’s statement that Russia and China will soon pose a threat to American spacecraft resembles nothing so much as an attempt to justify the militarization of space by the Pentagon, Russian military expert Konstantin Sivkov told RIA Novosti.

The US continues to take steps toward the militarization of space, Konstantin Sivkov, Russian military expert and First Vice President of the Academy of Geopolitical Issues in Moscow, told RIA Novosti commenting on US Air Force Gen. John E. Hyten’s recent remarks.

Speaking at Stanford University’s Center for Security and Cooperation, the commander of US Strategic Command highlighted the importance of “deterrence in space.”

“That’s where we do our special communications, from national command-and-control communications [to]… our nuclear business,” Gen. Hyten said as quoted by DoD News.

“We have to deter bad behavior in space and we have to deter conflict in space,” the general emphasized, referring to China and Russia as potential trouble-makers.

Gen. Hyten claimed that “in the not-so-distant future” Moscow and Beijing will be able to threaten every spacecraft the US has in space.

“We have to prevent that,” Hyten said, “and the best way to prevent war is to be prepared for war. So the United States is going to do that, and we’re going to make sure that everybody knows we’re prepared for war.”

While Hyten’s claims about the threat posed by China and Russia to American spacecraft bear no relation to reality, it becomes clear that the Pentagon is pushing ahead with a new round of an arms race, Sivkov believes.

“The United States is seeking justification for a new round of the arms race. Every day we hear that the United States must be prepared for war and that’s what this general [Hyten] has repeated. He merely pumps up the war hysteria, that’s all,” the Russian expert pointed out.

According to Sivkov, the Pentagon is trying to justify the need for new research and production of more sophisticated systems of anti-satellite weapons.

“In fact this is the way to justify the beginning of a large-scale militarization of space by the United States, under the pretext of the Russian and Chinese threat,” Sivkov explained.

In its latest saber-rattling move, The Pentagon is ramping up efforts to build an space war headquarters, in order to protect US satellites from hypothetical attacks by Russia and China.

The Russian military expert has called attention to the fact that while Russia is only exploring means to tackle the threat posed by its potential adversary’s satellites, the United States has already tested systems aimed at destroying spacecraft.

“This is the sea-based missile defense system combined with command and control Aegis combat system equipped with the [RIM-161] Standard Missile 3. The Americans have repeatedly tested the system shooting down low-altitude satellites,” Sivkov pointed out, stressing that this system has already been placed on alert.

He assumed that Russia and China are apparently taking efforts to narrow the gap with the Pentagon in this field.

Sivkov recalled that the Soviet Union had developed a system to control satellites. However, the system had not been put into service.

“Now [this research] could be resumed,” the military expert suggested, “It is also possible to create a laser gun to combat satellites. The US is developing such programs actively.”

Back in October, 2016 Russian military expert and observer Viktor Baranets expressed concerns over the US developing space weapons in his interview with Radio Sputnik.

“The current situation in space is that no satellites are protected, no matter at what orbits they are. The reason is that alongside the development of space systems, the US is running on all cylinders developing space weapons,” Baranets said.

January 27, 2017 Posted by | Militarism | , | 1 Comment

‘Madeleine Albright supported murder of Muslims, but now wants to register as Muslim!’


Press TV – January 27, 2017

Former US secretary of state Madeleine Albright supported the murder of hundreds of thousands of Muslims, but now she wants to register as Muslim, American political analyst Myles Hoenig says.

“Albright, who bragged that the murder of half a million Iraqis, mostly children and other civilians, was worth it in order to take out its president Saddam Hussein, now says she’s willing to register as a Muslim if Trump signs an executive order for the creation of a Muslim database. Can hypocrisy know no shame?” Hoenig asked.

“Where was she when she was laying the groundwork for the murder of Muslims in the Middle East? Where was she for eight years under Obama when he was supporting Takfiri terrorists in Syria and throughout the area? And where was she when her candidate Hillary Clinton was running for office and calling for her to stop her campaign belligerency towards Muslims?” the analyst continued.

Hoenig made the remarks during a phone interview with Press TV on Friday.

Albright has said she is “ready to register as Muslim” if President Donald Trump moves ahead with a plan to create a database of Muslim Americans.

“I stand ready to register as Muslim in #solidarity,” Albright, the first woman to run the State Department, said in a tweet on Wednesday.

Her comments came amid news of a draft executive order by Trump which would announce a ban on arrivals from seven Muslim-majority countries.

Albright joined thousands of Americans who have pledged to register as Muslim in response to Trump’s proposal on the campaign trail to set up a Muslim registry in the US.

‘A quiet movement in the US’

Hoenig said that there is “a quiet movement in the US to register our protest by registering as Muslims if the orders are given.”

“Others are considering wearing Jewish stars on their overcoats as was done to them by the Nazis. Either approach would be symbolic and a sign of solidarity with not just Muslims, but all minorities, including immigrants, who are, and have been, persecuted by US officials for many, many years,” he added.

“There is a Yiddish word to describe what Albright is proposing: chutzpah. Loosely translated, it is the boy who kills his parents and asks for mercy because he’s an orphan. What Albright is suggesting she would do equals that; the murderer of hundreds of thousands of Muslims now wants to identify as such when her choice for president was not elected,” he stated.

“If Hillary Clinton were the president, we would likely not see such a registration. But we certainly would see more bloodshed in Muslim countries on her orders. Where would Albright be then? the activist asked in his concluding remarks.

January 27, 2017 Posted by | War Crimes | , | 2 Comments

‘Murder in White House’ easiest way to deal with ‘Trump catastrophe,’ says German publisher

RT | January 27, 2017

A German editor-publisher said that “murder in the White House” would be the easiest way to stop the “Trump catastrophe” as official impeachment through the US Congress would be too difficult.

Josef Joffe, editor and publisher of the left-leaning German newspaper Die Zeit, made the remarks during an episode of the ‘Presse club’ show on public broadcaster ARD on Wednesday.

The  featured questions from viewers, with one calling in to ask the panel if it was possible to impeach President Donald Trump and thus end what she called the “Trump catastrophe.”

“Is there still a way out of the Trump catastrophe? Is there a legal possible scenario or a passage in the Constitution which would lead to his removal from office?” the viewer asked.

One of the experts present, publicist Constanze Stelzenmüller, responded with an explanation that the legal aspects of an official withdrawal procedure are rather complex and lengthy.

“A qualified two-thirds majority of the Senate must vote for [Trump’s] removal from office to take place. There are many political and legal hurdles, a lot would have to happen for it,” Stelzenmüller said. Just as she had finished, Joffe cut in, saying, “murder in the White House, for example,” without elaborating.

Joffe and his paper have been particularly critical of Trump, as have most mainstream German publications after the US president’s controversial remarks on Chancellor Angela Merkel’s immigration policy and exiting “obsolete” NATO.

Ahead of Trump’s swearing-in ceremony, Joffe  in an op-ed in UK paper the Guardian, titled ‘Trump has bared his fangs to Merkel. He will do untold damage to Europe.’

Breitbart, the US right-wing news website whose former head Stephen Bannon is now Trump’s chief strategist,  the remarks may spark an investigation from police in Germany based on the German law restricting insults against foreign heads of states. The same legislation saw comedian Jan Böhmermann undergo investigation over an insulting poem about the Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan on a late-night TV comedy show last year.

However, earlier this week Justice Minister Heiko Maas said that the law will soon be reformed or abolished, as it is “obsolete and unnecessary.”

The online community responded to Joffe’s comments with emotions ranging from anger to dismay.

Joffe is not the first to mention the possibility of Trump’s assassination.

Just ahead of Trump’s inauguration, CNN a segment speculating what might happen if a “disaster” were to wipe out everyone present at the event, suggesting a scenario that would leave Trump and his entire team dead and an Obama administration official in charge.

The report drew a flood of criticism from Trump supporters, and most certainly did not ease the mounting tension between the US media and the new administration.

Read more:

Trump taking office spells end to world order of 20th century – German FM Steinmeier

January 27, 2017 Posted by | Mainstream Media, Warmongering | , | 2 Comments

Amid new arms race, Putin & Trump must spearhead int’l law banning nuclear war – Gorbachev

RT | January 27, 2017

Former Soviet leader Michael Gorbachev called on Russia and the US to join forces in ruling out a disastrous global conflict, urging Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump to draw up a UN Security Council resolution banning nuclear war.

In an Op-Ed for Time magazine published on Thursday, the first and the last President of the Soviet Union painted a grim picture of the state of the world, calling it “too dangerous.” Specifically, Gorbachev drew attention to the burgeoning defense spending which, he believes, has prompted a new round in the arms race with potentially disastrous consequences.

“No problem is more urgent today than the militarization of politics and the new arms race,” he wrote.

Gorbachev believes that defense doctrines have become “more dangerous” and that increasingly hostile rhetoric from politicians and military leaders fueled by the media indicate that the full-blown military conflict could be around the corner.

“It all looks as if the world is preparing for war,” he said.

Gorbachev believes that the responsibility to spare the world from the menace of a potential nuclear conflict should be jointly shouldered by Moscow and Washington, given that they control over 90 percent of world’s nuclear stockpiles. Russian President Putin and US President Trump must therefore push for a resolution to be passed by the UN Security Council that would clearly stipulate the inadmissibility of such a conflict, Gorbachev proposes.

“Specifically, I propose that a Security Council meeting at the level of heads of state adopt a resolution stating that nuclear war is unacceptable and must never be fought,” he wrote.

US-Russia cooperation should not merely boil down to combatting terrorism or slashing nuclear stocks, but aim to reconcile positions on wider range of military issues, Gorbachev said.

“The goal should be to agree, not just on nuclear weapons levels and ceilings, but also on missile defense and strategic stability,” Gorbachev said, adding that nuclear war should be “outlawed” as a deeply ineffective and flawed means that has long proven to be futile.

In order to avert the conflict, “we need to resume political dialogue aiming at joint decisions and joint action,” he wrote.

Citing an unprecedented military build-up in Europe, Gorbachev said it led to Russian and NATO forces that “used to be deployed at a distance” to be stationed so close so they able to “shoot point-blank” at each other. The stationing of more missile defense systems “undermine strategic stability,” he said.

Gorbachev asserted that soaring military expenses have given rise to weapons the power of which is “comparable to that of the weapons of mass destruction,” criticizing the politicians’ tendency to care more about deadly weapons than actual peoples’ needs.

“While state budgets are struggling to fund people’s essential social needs, military spending is growing,” he wrote.

Similar concerns have repeatedly been voiced by Vladimir Putin’s government, which blamed the US-led NATO alliance for exacerbating tensions with Moscow by deploying anti-missile systems close to the Russian border and starting a new arms race.

“The prerequisites for a new arms race were created after the US withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty. This is obvious,” Russian President Vladimir Putin said in December, referring to the decision by President George W. Bush’s administration to pull out from the treaty in 2002 that paved the way for its multiple anti-ballistic system deployments across the world. Moscow believes the move has challenged its nuclear capabilities.

Reflecting on his own and US President Ronald Reagan’s efforts to avoid nuclear war, Gorbachev said that the “nuclear threat once again seems real” as “relations between the great powers have been going from bad to worse for several years now.”

“Ridding the world of this fear means making people freer. This should become a common goal. Many other problems would then be easier to resolve,” Gorbachev wrote.


If we are in arms race, US started it by pulling out of ABM treaty – Putin

Just imagine… if Russian troops were amassed on America’s borders

January 27, 2017 Posted by | Militarism, Timeless or most popular | , , | 1 Comment

Those ‘Resignations’: What Really Happened at the State Department


By Peter Van Buren | We Meant Well | January 26, 2017

Yesterday at the State Department five officials resigned or retired. Another one today.

The media has gone near-insane, claiming State is crumbling in protest under the Trump administration. This is not true. What happened at State is very routine.

Leaving the Department are head of the Management Bureau Pat Kennedy, Assistant Secretary of State for Administration Joyce Anne Barr, Assistant Secretary of State for Consular Affairs Michele Bond, Ambassador Gentry O. Smith, director of the Office of Foreign Missions, arms control official Tom Countryman, and Victoria Nuland (above).

Here’s the story:

— No one at the State Dept resigned in protest.

— No one was formally fired.

— Six people were transferred from or retired from political appointee positions. Technically those who did not retire can be considered to have “resigned,” but that is a routine HR/personnel term used, not some political statement. The six are career Foreign Service career personnel (FSOs) They previously left their FSO job to be appointed into political jobs and now have resigned those (or retired out of the State Department) to return to career FSO jobs. A circle. They are required to submit a letter of resignation as a matter of routine when a new president takes office.

— As for perspective: only one Under Secretary of State (Alan Larson) stayed through the transition from Bill Clinton to George W. Bush. It is routine for senior officials to leave or be reassigned.

— Several of the six are connected to the Clinton emails and/or Clinton’s handling of Benghazi. One of these people, Pat Kennedy, played a significant role in both, as well as many other controversial issues during Clinton’s term. Sources tell me that although officially Kennedy “retired,” he was more or less required to do so by the Trump administration.

— I have no information on the others, whether they were asked to retire, or just part of a reshuffling of positions and will routinely be reassigned. Most likely the latter, as such reshuffling is very common as administrations change. As everywhere in the government, the new administration fills its own political appointee slots.

— Some of the six will hit mandatory retirement age on January 31 anyway.

— Reports that these people represent “senior management” at State confuse terms. Because of the odd way State is organized, four of the six work in the Management Bureau, M in State talk. Kennedy was the head of the Bureau. The four play varying roles and collectively are not the senior management of the State Department. Two work in other parts of the Department (Countryman and Nuland) and are more directly tied to policies likely to change under the new administration.

— All six persons come from offices with a deep bench. It is highly unlikely that any of the work of the State Department will be impeded by any of these changes. Every office has a second, third, fourth, etc., person in charge who will step up pending formal replacements to be nominated and confirmed. This is all part of the standard transition process.

— As an example, I worked in the Bureau of Consular Affairs for most of my 24 years at State, including working with/for Michele Bond, one of the resignees. I personally know the people in the next rank below her, and all have equal experience and tenure as Bond. There will be no gap in experience or knowledge as some press reports have fretted. There will be no “void.” A slightly more dire, but responsible take, here.

— There will very likely be more, similar, “resignations” and reshuffling at State. New political appointees will bring in their own staff, for example. But unless and until an employee holds a press conference to announce s/he is resigning out of protest, the media should take care to calm down, verify facts, and report accurately.

— The Washington Post stated these changes were part of an “ongoing mass exodus of senior Foreign Service officers who don’t want to stick around for the Trump era.” I am not aware of any other noteworthy departures (two lesser officials left earlier this month in circumstances not clearly connected to Trump) and as stated above, the six did not resign in protest. Regardless, eight people in any context do not constitute a mass exodus.

— The Post article is, in my opinion, grossly alarming. It reflects a reporter apparently unfamiliar with transitions at State.

January 27, 2017 Posted by | Deception, Fake News, Mainstream Media, Warmongering | , | 10 Comments

Trump, Atomic Bombs and Confused Japanese Samurais

By Andre Vltchek | Dissident Voice | January 26, 2017

Goodbye President Obama! Japan is mourning your imminent departure. It is mourning because you were such a good friend, an exceptionally predictable ruler, and a truly traditional imperialist. You spoke so well, and tormented all those unruly colonies with admirable zeal and effectiveness!

What is soon coming is untested and therefore frightening. Obedient and disciplined Japan historically detests unpredictability.

It doesn’t really mind prostituting itself, but only if it brings great tangible benefits and as long as strict protocol and decorum are fully respected. The upcoming scenario could be frightening: Who knows?  That new big ugly chap across the ocean could soon ruin all etiquette; calling whores and profiteers by their real names.

The Japanese government and big business are now shaking in dread, day and night. What changes are coming? How to please the new foul-speaking lord?

10 billion dollars will be spent — or should we say ‘invested’ — in the United States by Toyota car giant, in order to appease the new Emperor? Why not? Every penny of it is worth it! The Emperor has to be kept happy. Japan is ready to arm itself to the teeth, provoking both North Korea but especially China? Yes and yes again, as long as the global ‘balance of power’ so greatly in favor of Japan, South Korea and Taiwan for decades, remains intact.

The Conservative Prime Minister of the country, Shinzo Abe, doesn’t want any ‘dangerous’ developments, any deviations. As far as he is concerned, things are just fine as they were. Not perfect, but fine. Japan has been exactly where it should be: on its back, ageing, but still desirable, eating mountains of caviar and oysters.


Things are, however, ‘developing’, rapidly and some would say, irreversibly. The new US president, Donald Trump, is clearly allergic to China as well as to several other Asian countries. He is preaching protectionism and an extreme form of nationalism, something that used to be synonymous with Japan’s trade and business practices of the past.

Somehow, this does not appear to be in Japan’s favor. Japan was allowed to be protectionist, in exchange for its unconditional political obedience. It thought that it was awarded almost exclusive privileges.

Now paradoxically, Japan is trying to save the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), a 12-nation free trade agreement, which Donald Trump is promising to nuke.  Japan’s parliament even ratified the pact at the end of 2016. Foreign Policy Magazine (FPM) declared in its report published on January 2017: “Abe Wants to Be the Last Free Trade Samurai”.

In fact, Shinzo Abe is desperately trying to preserve Japan’s prominent position, at least in Asia, and mainly against China, which is intensively negotiating its own economic partnership agreement with several Asian countries called “Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership” (RCEP). Mr. Abe is also trying to push through his brutal neo-liberal reforms that are encountering resistance from the Japanese public.

FPM wrote:

TPP gives the government the handy excuse it now needs to take unpopular reform measures meant to give a new push to the Abenomics program. Blaming outsiders for such ‘un-Japanese’ actions is a popular political maneuver that even gets a special name ‘gai-atsu’.


Japan’s desperate desire to remain the regional superpower is pushing it even closer towards the West, and particularly the United States. Since WWII, the country has been fully dependent on Washington (and its market fundamentalist dogmas), to such an extent that it almost totally abandoned its own global vision and foreign policy.

In the meantime, Japan is trying to even further penetrate and subjugate various Southeast Asian countries, literally wrestling them away from the increasing influence of China and Russia. It is a very complex, often bizarre game, as Abe’s government is habitually acting by inertia, doing what was expected of it by the earlier US administrations, not necessarily by the upcoming one.

Once totally under Western control, the Southeast Asian monolith is beginning to crack: the Philippines under President Duterte and Vietnam after some fundamental leadership changes in early 2016 are moving closer towards China and away from Washington’s orbit. Even Thailand, one of the most dependable Cold War allies of the West is quickly discovering the countless advantages that come from a stronger relationship with Beijing.

In Asia, resistance against Western imperialism is on the rise, and Japan is in panic. It collaborated for so long that it lost all memories of acting independently. In exchange for betraying Asia, it used to reap great benefits; the gap between its astronomical standards of living and those in the rest of Asia used to be exorbitant, but now, the Human Development Index (HDI) rates such countries as South Korea, even higher. Socialist and fiercely independent China is catching up, not only economically but also in terms of science, technology and standards of living.

The essential question is never openly asked, but is creeping into the subconscious thoughts of many Japanese people: ‘Was it really worth it to collaborate so shamelessly with the West, and for so long?’

The more confusing and unsettling the answers, the more aggressive the behavior of many ordinary Japanese citizens: racism towards the Chinese and Koreans is on the increase. Often it is propelled by a frustration that accompanies defeat; sometimes it comes from shame.


The present is intertwined with history and its interpretation.

In Nagasaki, I discussed once again the complex intricacies related to Japan’s past, with the legendary Australian historian Geoff Gunn.

Japan never really took full responsibility for the tremendous pain it caused several Asian countries, but particularly China, where around 35 million people vanished during the brutal, genocidal occupation.

It is also silent about its role during the Korean War, and the crimes committed by its corporations in Southeast Asia and elsewhere.

However, it portrays itself as a victim, because of the atomic bombs that destroyed two of its cities – Hiroshima and Nagasaki – at the end of WWII, and because of the annexation of several of its islands by the Soviet Union.

Of course, the nuclear bombing of the Japanese cities by the US Air Force (or the fire bombing of Tokyo) was not meant to be a ‘punishment’ for the monstrous crimes Japan committed in China or Korea.  It was simply a thinly disguised experiment on human beings, as well as an aggressive message and warning to the Soviet Union.

In Japan, everything is taken out of historic context. Collective memory is hazy. The occupation of several Asian and South Pacific countries, the alliance with the European fascist powers, WWII itself, the US occupation and consequent collaboration, Japan’s profiteering during the Korean War, as well as the constant siding with the imperialist policies of the West: it all has been covered by a comforting and softening duvet; by cozy make-believe pseudo reality.

While the horrendous US military and air force bases located in Okinawa and Honshu have been intimidating both China and North Korea, Japan has been distributing, hypocritically, all over the world its multi-lingual columns with “May Peace Prevail On Earth” signs, trying to feel good, and congratulating itself for its “peaceful constitution” (composed by the US after the War).

In 2016, Shinzo Abe’s close ally, Barak Obama, visited the Peace Park in Hiroshima City. He did not apologize to the victims of the nuclear blast. Instead, he posed with two traditional Japanese paper cranes, the local symbols of peace, and he spoke about the suffering of people during the wars. He wrote a message to promote the abolition of nuclear weapons, and then signed the book, putting the paper crane next to his signature.

How touching!

Servile Japanese media dutifully covered the event. Nobody died from laughter; nobody puked publicly, while recalling countless wars, deadly covert operations and coups as well as targeted killings that took place while Mr. Obama was the boss of his aggressive Empire.

A few months later, Mr. Abe visited Pearl Harbor. Like his US counterpart did in Hiroshima, he spoke about the suffering of the US servicemen based in Hawaii during the Japanese attack. He did not apologize, but he turned sentimental, even poetic.

At the end, almost everyone felt really well, at least those living in Japan and the West. Others do not matter too much, anyway!


Now the old script is quickly becoming obsolete. The new director is facing the stage, shouting at the actors, hitting seats with his cane, insulting protégés of his predecessors.

Japan is terrified. It likes continuity and certainty. It plays by the rules, the older the better.

This is not looking good. It may not end well, not well at all.

China and Russia are rising, indignant and finally united. Several Asian countries are switching sides. President of the Philippines is calling Western leaders ‘sons-of-whores’. India, now the most populous country on Earth, has gritted its teeth and ‘just in case’ got itself one more chair, now sitting on two.

At least some in Japan are now (secretly and quietly) suspecting that all along they were betting on the totally wrong horse.

How can a samurai break all his allegiances without losing face? How can he save his ass, when his armor begins to burn? It is not easy; the etiquette of honor is extremely strict, even if honor consists, if stripped of its decorative layer, of brainlessness and sleaze.

One possible and very traditional escape is a ritual suicide. It seems that Japan’s leadership is committing exactly that: it is raising the banner abandoned on the battlefield by the previous warlord, it is trying to gather some scattered allies, and then lead them to the futile battle against the mightiest creature on Earth – the Dragon, and by association, against the dragon’s friend and comrade – the Bear.

It is all beginning to look like a kitschy martial art movie, or like a desperate set of irrational moves performed by a gambler before he reaches absolute bankruptcy.

All this could be, however, extremely deceiving, as Mr. Abe is actually not a fool. He is playing a very high game and he may still have some chances of winning: if the new Lord, Mr. Trump, decides to exceed all previous rulers by his brutality and aggressiveness, and re-hire the old and well-tested samurai, Japan, for his deadly onslaught against humanity.

It is worth remembering that throughout Japan’s history, not all samurais were fighting for honor. Most of them were for hire.

Andre Vltchek is a philosopher, novelist, filmmaker and investigative journalist. He has covered wars and conflicts in dozens of countries. Three of his latest books are revolutionary: novel Aurora and two bestselling works of political non-fiction: Exposing Lies Of The Empire and Fighting Against Western Imperialism.

January 27, 2017 Posted by | Economics, Militarism, Timeless or most popular | , | Leave a comment

The Party’s Over

By Missy Comley Beattie | CounterPunch | January 27, 2017

In 2003, I was living in NYC. The George Bush Administration was manipulating intelligence, stating a case for the invasion of Iraq—a war in which 4500 U.S. troops died, including my nephew who was killed in 2005. No one knows the number of Iraqi casualties, but it’s estimated that this could be as high as one million.

Many journalists, most notably the New York Times’ Judith Miller, were complicit in convincing readers that Saddam Hussein was producing WMD. During 2001 and 2002, Miller wrote a series of articles based on false information. Alternative facts.

In February of 2003, I gathered with protesters to oppose the war. Several foreign media venues were present, however the event—coinciding with rallies throughout the world—was downplayed, minimized by U.S. establishment news. Instead of reporting an accurate presence, the press estimated crowd size at tens of thousands.

Recall Colin Powell’s advice to Bush, “If you break it you own it,” yet despite his misgivings, Powell spoke to the United Nations just 10 days before the antiwar march, presenting a detailed description of Iraq’s weapons program—one that didn’t exist.

Determined to remove Saddam Hussein, Bush ignored the sentiment of the people and said he wasn’t concerned with focus groups. A boneless Congress followed, fearful of being labeled weak on terror. Thus ensued an epic clusterfuck whose first campaign was named Shock and Awe.

Those who spoke out against war often were vilified. Sean Hannity’s guests who questioned war were accused of hating America. Politicians and aspiring politicians had as wardrobe staples an American flag pin.

Cut now to the January 21, 2017 Women’s March. This event was covered from start to finish by members of the U.S. press. Reporters engaged participants, interviewed, asking why they were there and what’s next.

A friend who went to D.C. to attend the march was exuberant. I asked if she’d have gone if Hillary Clinton had won the election. She said yes. I countered, “No, if Clinton had won there wouldn’t have been a protest march.”

Instead there would’ve been a celebratory assembling of vagina voters. Despite Hillary Clinton’s warmongering. Despite the blood dripping from her hands for foreign policy catastrophes in Libya, Syria, Haiti, Honduras, Iraq, and Yemen.

Meanwhile, Women’s March attendees, many of whom never raised their voice to denounce Clinton/Obama carnage, are being encouraged to utilize their energy, increase their activism, run for public office … as Democrats. Please.

This just in and let’s hope it’s faux news: Hillary Clinton has told friends she’s considering hosting a talk show to remain visible for another run in 2020. When there’s raging dissatisfaction with Trump, seems Clinton must seize an opportunity, be more than wallpaper. According to author Ed Klein, she believes she, not Obama, is the Democratic Party’s leader-in-exile.

The party’s over. Dead. Should be enclosed in yellow tape with signage stating, “CRIME SCENE DO NOT ENTER”.

One down.

Perhaps soon the Republican Party, that other head of the Military-Industrial-Complex Monstrosity, will roll.

Missy Beattie has written for National Public Radio and Nashville Life Magazine. She was an instructor of memoirs writing at Johns Hopkins’ Osher Lifelong Learning Institute in Baltimore. Email:

January 27, 2017 Posted by | Militarism, War Crimes | | Leave a comment