Home | About | Donate

Missile Attack on Syria Is a Salute to 'Russiagate' Enthusiasts—Whether They Like It or Not


The people calling Trump “the peace candidate” were not the ones blowing a smokescreen around Clinton’s record.

They were the alt-left that ignored the obvious war monger in waiting in Trump.

If you take in the whole threat, sorry, the fascist sitting in the White House with Bolton as National Security Advisor, and soon to be torture advocate CIA director as Secretary of State, seems to me a worse bet for scaling back US Empire than Clinton. Actually, neither one would scale it back, but Trump is by far has the most potential for making everything much, much, worse.

Why? Because he is an unhinged dangerous fascist, that’s why, who considers the military as an extension of his fucking ego.

If you expand that concern domestically? Not even close.

And, just for the record, as I have a very long record here…just adding to it…

I have never held my punches against Clinton. Take your pick, Bill or Hillary.

Both are war criminals. And it is quite apparent that Hillary has no problem whatsoever with torture. Further evidence of this, is her tacit support for Pompeo.


And the alt-left asserted Trump would do no such thing. I mean “he hasn’t killed anyone yet” was their cry.

Utter fools.

For the record, I called Clinton out for her advocating such in Syria, including creating no fly zones, as I saw that as a move aligned with the Neocon strategy of ultimate regime change in Syria.

You know, the kind Bolton wants, and Haley, and Woolsey (advisor to Trump during the campaign), and Bibi, et al.

Trump bombed those airfields as a nod to Clinton apparently.


Let’s just add, Trump’s picks on the judiciary were reason enough to oppose him. If anyone thinks they would do anything domestically or internationally to curb executive police authority and war powers, send me a few grams of whatever it is you are smoking. I’d like to get some to stave off the shitty feelings that are sure to come as Trump’s acolytes issue their decrees from the bench.


As Albert Einstein once siad: “There is no such thing as a good war or a bad peace.”

For some other debate the motivation is important but who cares about scumbag behavior if the end result is peace. The simple fact that mainstream media, the US version of the old Pravda, was promoting the same shtick as they did in 2002-03 and the mainstream Dems lined up behind them is the disgusting thing here.


I simply don’t share your views on the either the positions or the significance of the alt-left you and Yunzer are so focused on.

Also, Hillary had a track record of backing regime change and being loyal to her friends Bibi and Kissinger. I have most assuredly seen you attack her track record–and I applaud that. As for Trump, he’s clearly an abject idiot, but he dropped the regime change imperative in Syria, and frankly, I’m glad he did. Does that make me alt-left somehow? A Putin supporter? Or just someone who understands that regime change is shorthand for destabilizing a region that we just can’t allow to organize on its own terms?

Do I hold out hope that the Mideast can make peace with itself? Not really.
Do I believe that the US will be a force for creating peace there. Fuck no.


As if to underscore my point above on the judiciary, etc.:

All these stupid Trump-defending arguments by progressives are actually what the Trump State loves, because that’s what we’ll have if Trump is successful. Tell Norm Solomon we’ll be a lot more like Russia, yay!


Yunzer and I?

The alt-left as shorthand to the point I was constantly making in the campaign are those on the left (from Pilger, Solomon, Greenwald, Parry, etc…and forum posters) who couldn’t see the forest of Trump for the trees of Clinton.

Assange has admitted to as much. That he wanted a fascist to become President, as some catalyst that things getting very very bad faster via Trump would be a good thing for the world.

Trump is a fucking fascist and ran a months long campaign stoking HATE to gain power. Right wing, White Nationalist hate. But hey, he’s open and honest about it. Remember that one?

But I repeat myself.

Significance? Hell yes it is significant!!! That those from a left perspective couldn’t bother to fight against the right wing hate of Trump, rather jumping at every chance to dither, in order to keep the power of their jabs against Clinton in tact.

We have the most right wing Administration in how many decades? Reagan looks like a leftist compared to this fascist jerk.

Don’t know why you are asking me “Does that make me a Putin supporter?”

I haven’t ever leveled that rhetorical attack, so you must be confusing me with someone else. Yunzer perhaps?

Again, what? Trump isn’t for regime change? Bolton ring a bell? Woolsey ring a bell? Moving the US Embassy to Jerusalem to cozy up with Bibi who wants regime change ring a bell? Boasting of military purchases holding up charts in front of the Saudi Arabian monarchy (very much Clinton like, but more so…pardon, uh…more honest) ring a bell?

My point, again and again and again and again…

The alt-left are those that in leveling their absolutely valid criticisms of Clinton during the campaign, took it a leap further by either downplaying, dismissing, or completely ignoring what was evident about Trump’s right wing fascist war mongering bent, in order to feign some consistency to their political stance against Clinton.

Torture advocacy? What torture advocacy, for instance.

Again, it was the alt-left that time and time again made the argument that Trump “hadn’t killed anyone yet”, therefore…blah blah blah.

Are you, were you an alt-leftist? Well, only you know that for sure.


But, but, Clinton wanted to do it. Trump is just being more open and honest.

(Dear Reader, making a contrast between Clinton and Trump does not a supporter of oligarchy make…check my clucking posts)

Upcoming article by ____, ______, or ______.


Sometimes in life we don’t have great choices. I wasn’t a fan of Clinton, like many, because I didn’t like her foreign policy instincts. But, I also knew she was a lot smarter than Trump and would likely have a diverse cabinet and make qualified appointments to executive branch agencies and the courts. These things matter, a ton, as some people appear to be just now learning (I find it ironic that some yell at Democrats after spending an election arguing Trump was better on “healthcare,” “banks,” and “war.”). Sometimes it’s okay to “fear vote” because there are legitimate reasons to fear.


Oh, and need I mention, another “accident” happened in the land of peace-loving oligarchs:


Yours is a recipe for countries like Cuba, China, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Congo, Venezuela, Russia, and many other dictators to have control over the world—it would be a disaster just like the UN is now.


On banks, Hillary would’ve told them to ‘cut it out,’ and appointed some tough oversight like Obama did(n’t), while lining up some high-paid post-presidency speeches to Goldman-Sachs, and somehow reined in the bank deregulation bill that’s going to pass with a veto-proof majority that includes lots of Dem senators.

On healthcare she would have told those damn hippies that single payer will ‘never, ever happen.’

On war, she’d be out-missiling Trump because ‘Assad must go.’

She’s so much smarter than Trump that she lost an election to him.


Agreed. It is concerning that like a wild animal we can fully expect the U.S. to lash out at anyone near them if they get cornered though and I do think there are some in power that have the mindset of “if the U.S. can’t lead the world than the world deserves to be better off nuked to oblivion”.


I’m glad you know all that. Thank god we have Trump!


2 true


It isn’t about trying to explain Trump’s behavior. It is simply analyzing the media’s framing of the issue and how they are pushing him in the direction towards more conflict. Trump’s actions, their rationale and impact are another story, and another article. You might not like discussing the fact that most every Democrat you support is pushing him towards conflict, don’t radically depart from the right on foreign policy and have been extremist hawks in regards to Russia, but that alone should be a focus of discussion. You divert the attention to other things for obvious reasons.


Didn’t Cenk start out as a conservative? Seems like he’s gone full circle and become a neocon.


I disagree. As much as I criticize Cenk on buying into the Russiagate narrative he overall is very much liberal, as in true liberal, not the mainstream media or democratic party neo-liberalism. He was totally against the attacks in series over the weekend and defended Russia calling for investigations into the chemical attack.


Well, I never cared too much for the opinions of Robert Parry , RIP ( a frequent contributor on this site). He seemed to me to be too much of a Putin apologist. I had several arguments with folks on this site after the whole Crimean thing…where I said it was just an orchestrated take over by Putin ( something he confirmed himself). Putin is an old KGB officer, what did you expect? He will be an “Elected President” forever, except if he chooses a seat warmer like what’s his name between non sequential terms…so he can appear “democratic”. Parry was right (in my opinion) on one thing though…the election of Trump has made some progressives lose their minds. The same people defending Putin now see him as the devil…until they excuse him again. All depending on what Trump is doing relative to Putin. Go figure. :confused:


And a consistent apologist is trying to tell us that Hillary would have been a peacenik compared to Trump, all the while fanning the flames of anti-Russia sentiment and missing the point of this article.

I guarantee that the article I posted above was totally ignored by the Hillary apologencia.