Home | About | Donate

Obama’s Flak Demeans Putin’s Posture


#1

Obama’s Flak Demeans Putin’s Posture

Robert Parry

The demonizing of Russia’s President Vladimir Putin appears to know no bounds, with the White House and The New York Times going out of their way to mock his request for a meeting with President Barack Obama and then ladling on insults about Putin’s looks and posture


#2

Great article! Putin, who at every turn tries to serve the causes of caution and patience, is demonized beyond measure. Goebbels keeps throbbing...


#3

Holy Shit, sounds like we have a bunch of psychopathic ten years old boys and girls running the show in Washington. I have no faith in the Obama administration to do the right thing.


#4

Perry is an asset, as is Prof. Stephen Cohen, but good data is available from RT's Crosstalk:

https://www.rt.com/shows/crosstalk/316465-syria-us-regime-change/


#5

Is Putin the new Peter the Great, see Pepe Escobar:

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article42963.htm


#6

The unrelenting hostility to Putin across the American media and political spectrum is hard to comprehend, but must have much to do with the larger geopolitical role of the U.S. In this, it is in line with the universal consensus on free trade and a global military. Evidently, the power brokers see Russia as the only major opponent of U.S. global dominance. They play with the idea of China as a threat but its intimate linkage with the western economies makes that a narrative that cannot be overplayed. Note that the arrival of Xi is little noted in the mass media despite all the recent "concern" about cyber espionage and military build-up in the South China Sea. Whatever threats China may pose - and some may be genuine enough - the leaders of the West cannot risk making Beijing too unhappy. Putin, however, oversees an economy, however faltering, that is not directly linked to the West, and when he chooses to act independently , as in Syria, the thought leaders of the west can feel free to scream as loud as they like.

There is also, of course, the need for a villain to justify high tech military spending. Who needs nuclear missiles and aircraft carriers to deal with terrorists? But when Russia sends its aging bombers out on a run, that provides a nice justification for another billion dollar warplane.


#7

Mr. Parry, you certainly get a lot right and I appreciate your deconstructing the official story regarding Putin's role in the Ukrainian debacle. But this is ridiculous:

"Though I’m told that Obama understands how inaccurate this black-and-white depiction is, he feels that he must go with the flow to avoid being denounced by the neocons and liberal interventionists as “weak.”

Obama is hardly the central power or decision-maker. He is a puppet of far more entrenched and empowered interests. It's also plausible that the various individuals who jumped the White House fence were allowed to do so to remind Obama that he "serves at the pleasure of security forces." Any breach in protocol--on his end--and an unfortunate accident could quickly occur. It would, of course, be blamed on a white racist.

Tom Engelhardt relentlessly pushes the "Why is the U.S. losing wars?" frame. NEVER does he take in the greater reality that WAR is primarily what U.S. industrial enterprises (along with the bankers that profit from funding these planned disasters) rely upon. Instead, a sports-caster level of "analysis" is brought to the subject.

Other writers fall back on the 911 official narrative and insist that Bin Laden was behind the U.S. attack.

In this article's case, the canard of Obama AS decider is pushed. And rather than speak honestly about the degree to which sitting Presidents must and will fulfill the objectives of military campaigns like those consistent with the goals of The Project for a New American Century (it's hardly a "coincidence" that all of the nations on that hit list happen to be the ones targeted like dominoes since 911), the idea that Obama fears embarrassment for being weak is propped up as causative element (or realistic explanation).

Too many writers toe the line and when they depart from one Official Narrative, they prop up another.

Disinformation is so thick it's a virtual cognitive cloud cover fogging the nation and most of its would-be journalistic truth-tellers. It's so bad many can't separate fact from fiction. Some time ago I presented the analogy that the same holds true for actual food (as opposed to "food for thought") in that Monsanto's franken plants have merged with many genuine plants and it will be next-to-impossible to separate that tainted wheat from the actual chaff.

For a great many intelligent persons the same holds true when it comes to discerning Truth from Official Lies Told Often.


#8

Who would risk nuclear war for profit?

Mammon rules by suppressing the vote.


#9

In the conscious of ordinary honest America loving folks, it is too hard to keep those thoughts in our head or they have never questioned our leadership. Exceptional Americans is all their heads have been filled with and our enemies are out to get us and everyone is our enemy.


#10

Welcome to the age of deception.Our government & press lies to us every day!
Obama & the weak Dems continue to cow--tow to the dangerous neocons at every turn.
The press continues to echo the fabricated neo-con lies.
This is a direct result of us not demanding prosecutions of the neocon instigators & the lapdog dems that voted for war.
Things were fine before W Bush stole the elections in 2000 & 2004. The press didn't do their job then & the press isn't doing it now!


#13

The surreal storyline here is that our nuclear end might arrive because Putin slouched in his chair and someone made an issue of it. You kinda hope there is intelligent life out there somewhere watching us so that they can at least get a laugh in the process...


#15

Obama is just giving conservatives what they want, fear.


#16

Did you mean Parry as in Robert Parry?


#17

Yes, oops, to quote Governor Rick Perry.


#18

I am by turns intrigued by, upset by, and amazed by how often people who comment in these threads blame fellow citizens for the lies they've been told.

Mass media is VERY powerful.

When all talking heads STAY On Message, some outlier expressing a different (as in more truthful) view is seen as the loose cannon.

How different is this reflex to blame fellow citizens for long-lasting campaigns of VERY sophisticated disinformation, mind control, and trauma than the blame-game pushed by right wing fascists like Trump?

MANY things were unfortunately learned from the Nazis. If you don't know the extent of Project Paperclip, you should apprise yourself of this data. Bottom line: human beings--for the most part--can be easily conditioned and key to the process are those messages that BYPASS the cognitive filters of the logical mind and go right to the unconscious, or "lower mind." This form of messaging has been groomed to a High Art.

If a human being took on the persona of evil and used that evil to seduce people into harming themselves would you feel compassion for those deceived? That's what I feel. Or would you show the cold, callous response of a sociopath who BLAMES the easy marks for their capacity to BE deceived?

Christ, widely recognized as the polarity to evil... explained that it's the pure-hearted who become part of the God-head. "Be ye as children to enter the kingdom." Children are trusting, and children do not think in terms of evil.

Earlier today I listened to a radio discussion that featured a prominent Florida educator. The gist of the discussion focused on the importance of exposure (to different cultures and vantage points) and opportunity to the learning process. When I read a few novels by C. S Lewis (in particular, "The Screw Tape Letters") I was repelled by the material. For an author to write such a detailed chronicle of evil and how it works suggests keen familiarity. In parallel, the radio discussion pointed out that if children don't have the "schema" from which to judge a situation, they are not in a position to add it to their retinue of things learned.

There is another Biblical adage (apropos to the Pope's visit to the U.S.) that says something to the effect that the Light beheldeth the darkness and understood it not.

Those who are not hip to evil and do have pure hearts are in no position to recognize the degree to which they are being manipulated.

Seems that many here would blame the young women abducted by the likes of Ted Bundy for being kind enough to attempt to help a vulnerable-seeming person.

You give evil a pass by blaming its victims. That may be logical in a cold, clinical way but it shows a complete dearth of spiritual "intelligence."

You said:

"In the conscious of ordinary honest America loving folks, "

I wonder... do you recognize the difference between the conscience (capacity to discern right from wrong) and consciousness? Apparently, from your wording, not.


#19

And I agree--to a point--on Paul Craig Roberts. Any public servant who's been inside the labyrinth of govt. and still retains moral integrity (along with a working intellect) has to feel aghast at the nature of all the lies now running the big imperial show. I would rather you not use valid applause for Dr. Roberts as a means for knocking Chomsky and Sanders.

Dr. Roberts KNOWS that the global economy has been rendered a felonious house of cards. I agree. And word is-- a major reset will have to occur. I like to listen to right wing libertarians on economic issues since they are more interested in $ and business than dems/liberals/progressives and quite in the know. Gerald Celente has made it clear that with commodity prices lower than they were in l999, and huge numbers relying on food stamps, and oil prices so low... that major trading partner nations are all experiencing a recession regardless of all the bogus stock market numbers that hide the precipice from the masses... for as long as they can. It's refreshing to hear him say he's surprised that the con has gone on this long. (So I agree with you on this matter.)

I've stated this often lately. I am appalled at the Catholic church's stance on women. Earlier today on public radio a young man shared his experience of "coming out" as a gay male and how he felt called back to the Catholic church after his mother died. He spoke with great wit and insight on his conflicted response to the Church. And when he related that some members of the Vatican spoke OUT against the use of condoms--even when AIDS was spreading, or condemned a South American woman for obtaining an abortion for her 9-year old daughter while the man who raped that child drew no stigma from the church, he said he could not in good faith go back.

However, I can put aside my outrage over this significant moral failing to applaud the fact that this Pope is speaking out about Mother Earth and climate change, about poverty, and about poverty in response to capitalism acting unchecked from any moorings of decency, whatsoever.

Similar with Mr. Sanders. One article on C.D. explains that 50,000 people have died in Mexico's "war on drugs," and at least that number in Columbia. U.S. covert forces are certainly working their black magic to turn Syria into a failed state. Put together all these numbers and one has to do triage on their own heart and soul.

Sanders is saying more about U.S. foreign policy than idiots like Trump or Clinton, warriors sworn to spreading hell further and faster. He is not saying enough. But too many here condemn Sanders primarily for his lack of overt condemnation of Israel. Perhaps that will come... in time.

There are so many horrors in our times that it may not be possible for those privileged persons who gain major pulpits to tackle them all. That's why I'd rather applaud those who say important things knowing they are not necessarily saying ALL that needs to be said... or done.

Thank you for the nod.


#21

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.


#23

Because Sanders is no leftist. Because Sanders is no socialist.

Because Sanders, like Obama, and like the Megathatcher, is an enabler of the Neocon maniacs who would kill us all in fealty to PNAC.


#25

Yes, but his non-canonization of Serra would have been a slap in the face of Latino-Mexican USAns. As I pointed out previously, gringos - who robbed the Mexican people of 30% of their territory, are in no position to preach to them about about the treatment of indigenous Americans.


#26

Can you provide a link to the "Putin must be stopped" on his website? I visited both his senatorial and presidential campaign websites, and while his foreign policy positions are certainly cringe-worthy enough, I saw nothing on Russia or Putin.