Showing posts with label Scumbag-in-Chief. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Scumbag-in-Chief. Show all posts

Saturday, January 18, 2020

The Doctrine and Practice Of White Supremacy Remains the Fundamental and Foundational Template Of U.S. Politics and Culture In the Neofascist Age of Trumpian/Republican MisRule


All,

Never and I mean absolutely never underestimate the bottomless pit of cruelty, envy, resentment, hatred, paranoia, stupidity, jealousy, idiocy, and misantrophy informing the raging sociopathic levels of bawling crybaby grievance fueled victimhood imposed by a dyed in the wool white supremacist society, culture, government, nation etc. This sort of braindead moronic behavior is all too typical of a deeply demagogic and deadly massive national rightwing zombie cult led by the most backward and reactionary political and cultural force in all of North America (i.e. the Republican Party) and the utterly criminal and corrupt neofascist regime led by a borderline psychopath who calls itself "The President" of these United Hates. Remember: 63 million American zombies actually voted for this gangster cult leader a mere 3 years ago and 91% of them were (and are) white Americans whether people “really wanna believe it or not." Stay tuned because the clear and present empirical and existential danger that we all justly despise and fear is gonna continue its vile and destructive ways from the present impeachment trial to the 2020 elections in November. Trust me: It's only going to get far uglier and more deadly from here on out...

Kofi


Trump Targets Michelle Obama’s School Nutrition Guidelines on Her Birthday

The Agriculture Department proposed a rule that would further unravel nutrition standards set by Mrs. Obama when she was first lady.

by Lola Fadulu
January 17, 2020
New York Times

PHOTO: The proposal weakens requirements that providers offer a variety of vegetables.Credit...Ilana Panich-Linsman for The New York Times
WASHINGTON — The Trump administration moved on Friday to roll back school nutrition standards championed by Michelle Obama, an effort long sought by food manufacturers and some school districts that have chafed at the cost of Mrs. Obama’s prescriptions for fresh fruit and vegetables.

The proposed rule by the Agriculture Department, coming on the former first lady’s birthday, would give schools more latitude to decide how much fruit to offer during breakfast and what types of vegetables to include in meals. It would also broaden what counts as a snack.

A spokeswoman for the department said that it had not intended to roll out the proposed rule on Mrs. Obama’s birthday, although some Democratic aides on Capitol Hill had their doubts. Food companies applauded the proposal, while nutritionists condemned it, predicting that starchy foods like potatoes would replace green vegetables and that fattening foods like hamburgers would be served daily as “snacks.”

“Schools and school districts continue to tell us that there is still too much food waste and that more common-sense flexibility is needed to provide students nutritious and appetizing meals,” Sonny Perdue, the agriculture secretary, said in a statement. “We listened and now we’re getting to work.”

Combating childhood obesity was Mrs. Obama’s signature issue, a rallying cry for her supporters and a lightning rod for conservative critics who saw it as epitomizing the liberal “nanny state” of the Obama era.

Mrs. Obama pressed to update federal nutrition standards and to bring healthier foods to schools. She planted the White House kitchen garden on the South Lawn — the first real garden since Eleanor Roosevelt’s World War II “Victory Garden” — and invited students to sow and harvest it each year. And she created the first Task Force on Childhood Obesity and developed the “Let’s Move!” campaign that aimed to get children to engage in 60 minutes of physical activity each day.

Mrs. Obama’s work “improved the diets of millions of children, especially vulnerable children in food insecure households,” said Juliana Cohen, a nutrition professor at Harvard University’s School of Public Health. More students are eating vegetables and whole grain-rich foods because of the former first lady.

“Food waste was a problem before the healthier standards were enacted, so rolling them back won’t solve that problem,” Ms. Cohen said. “It’s just that more people are paying attention to the issue now.”

With nearly 14 million American children, or about 19 percent, considered obese, few doubted Mrs. Obama’s intentions. And with more than 30 million children participating in the National School Lunch Program, school meals were a powerful way to target poor diets. Of that total, 22 million children are from low-income families.

But the cost and prescriptions of her policies had detractors from the beginning: beef-and-potato state lawmakers, libertarians and camera-ready conservatives like Sarah Palin, who showed up to events carrying cookies and accused Mrs. Obama of robbing children of dessert.

“The school breakfast and lunch programs have been riddled with waste for a long time, plate waste being one, and that turns into financial waste,” said Jonathan Butcher, a senior policy analyst at the conservative Heritage Foundation.

“Clearly, no one wants kids to be served unhealthy foods,” he added, but if nutrition requirements lead to children throwing away the food offered, the standards are pointless.

The Agriculture Department said the changes reflected requests made over the past two years by those at schools who serve meals to children and teenagers. The department plans to release a regulatory analysis and to open the public comment period on Jan. 21.

The proposal is the department’s second attempt to roll back nutrition standards promoted by Mrs. Obama through the 2010 Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act, which required schools to serve children fruits and vegetables every day and to offer more whole grain-rich foods and fat-free or low-fat milk. It also required school meal providers to limit calories and reduce saturated fat, trans fat and sodium.

The department finalized a rule in December 2018 that gave school meal providers permission to serve flavored low-fat milk in the National School Lunch Program and school breakfast program. That rule stipulated that only half of the weekly grains must be whole grain-rich, not the 100 percent target of the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act, and it gave providers more time to reduce sodium in meals.

Attorneys general from six states and the District of Columbia and the Center for Science in the Public Interest have sued the department over the December 2018 rule, arguing that the rule puts millions of children at greater risk of health issues.

Friday’s proposal goes further. It allows schools to adjust fruit servings during breakfast, to reduce waste, it said, and to make room for “meats and meat alternates.” Under current regulation, providers must offer one cup of fruit during breakfast for students in kindergarten through 12th grade.

The new rule would also relax current vegetable requirements, which say providers must offer a variety of vegetables, like leafy greens and starchy foods. A department official said the goal was to give more flexibility, not change the amount of vegetables offered.

The proposal would also allow schools to offer lunch entrees for à la carte purchase, to reduce waste.

Child nutritionists said the proposed rule could lead to school meal providers turning away from healthy foods, instead of coming up with ways to make that food more appealing. More flexibility on the types of vegetables offered could lead to meals dominated by starchy foods, like potatoes, which are cheaper than green vegetables.

The National Alliance for Nutrition and Activity said allowing à la carte purchases could create a “giant junk food loophole.” It could also lead to children frequently turning to meals that are meant to be eaten once a week, like hamburgers.

“With one in three of our kids on track to have diabetes, it’s unconscionable that the Trump administration would do the bidding of the potato and junk food industries,” said Sam Kass, who served as the executive director of the Let’s Move! campaign.

Democrats reacted furiously. Representative Ayanna S. Pressley, Democrat of Massachusetts, said on Twitter that “The Occupant is trying to play petty with the food our babies eat. Add it to the list affirming that the cruelty is the point with this White House.”

Representative Robert C. Scott of Virginia, the chairman of the House Education and Labor Committee, said, “For many children, the food they eat at school is their only access to healthy, nutritious meals.”

The Trump administration, he added, was putting “special interests above the long-term health and development of America’s students.”

Those interests applauded, including the School Nutrition Association, which represents cafeteria workers and the food companies that provide schools with food.

“Updated nutrition standards for school meals have been a tremendous success over all, but a few of the requirements contributed to reduced lunch participation, higher costs and food waste,” Gay Anderson, the president of the association, said in a statement.

This rule is one of two that the Agriculture Department plans to propose next week. The other rule would give meal providers more flexibility under the summer meal programs.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

Lola Fadulu is a reporter in the Washington bureau. @lfadulu

A version of this article appears in print on Jan. 18, 2020, Section A, Page 1 of the New York edition with the headline: U.S.D.A. Tries To Relax Rules On School Food. Order Reprints | Today’s Paper

PHOTO: The proposal weakens requirements that providers offer a variety of vegetables. Credit: Ilana Panich-Linsman for The New York Times

Wednesday, January 15, 2020

Just Like Their Corrupt Gangland Boss Himself All the President's Men Are Scumbags As Well

All,

All of the Scumbag-in-Chief's major (and minor) associates, appointees, colleagues, acolytes, enablers, accomplices and maniacal partners-in-crime are absolutely the worst species of human beings alive: Shameless, greedy, ruthless, mendacious, mean, pathological, hypocritical, and relentlessly, thoroughly, and unabashedly fullashit no matter what...HORRIBLE doesn't even begin to adequately describe exactly who and what they are...

MICHAEL FLYNN is not only no exception to this rule but remains (as always) at the very highest tier of this massive vile HOUSE OF CARDS that is the neofascist regime we currently still pretend is "our government." Stay tuned because not only is it all going to become worse than ever very soon but we will finally have to decide if these 21st century gangsters are going to continue to rule and define not just our politics but our very liives...

Kofi 

BREAKING NEWS

Michael Flynn, the ex-national security adviser, asked to withdraw his guilty plea in the Russia inquiry. He accused prosecutors of “bad faith.”

Tuesday, January 14, 2020
9:35 PM EST


The stunning request means that more than two years after first pleading guilty and after spending dozens of hours answering the questions of investigators for the special counsel, Mr. Flynn would take his chances at trial if a judge agrees to grant his motion.

That would set up a collision course with prosecutors who could decide to bring additional charges against him.

Read the latest:

https://www.nytimes.com/…/michael-flynn-withdraws-guilty-pl…

Michael Flynn Moves to Withdraw Guilty Plea in About-Face After Extensive Cooperation

Once cited by the special counsel team as an exemplary cooperating witness, Mr. Flynn had grown increasingly combative in recent months. 

by Adam Goldman
January 15, 2020
New York Times


PHOTO: Michael T. Flynn, President 
Trump’s former national security adviser, 
in 2018 in Washington. Credit: Tom Brenner 
for The New York Times

WASHINGTON — President Trump’s former national security adviser Michael T. Flynn moved late on Tuesday to withdraw his guilty plea on charges of lying to investigators in the Russia inquiry, accusing prosecutors of “bad faith” and vindictiveness after they asked a judge to sentence him to prison for backing out of a deal to cooperate with them.

The last-ditch request means that more than two years after first pleading guilty and after spending dozens of hours answering the questions of investigators for the special counsel, Mr. Flynn would take his chances at trial if a judge agrees to grant his motion. That would set up a collision course with prosecutors who could decide to bring additional charges against him.

Mr. Flynn, a retired Army lieutenant general and former head of the Defense Intelligence Agency whose case marked a striking downfall, has already pleaded guilty twice to lying to the F.B.I. about conversations with the Russian ambassador to the United States during the presidential transition in late 2016. As part of his agreement with the government, Mr. Flynn also admitted that he violated foreign lobbying laws when he failed to disclose work he had done for Turkey.

After he cooperated extensively with prosecutors in the Russia investigation, they recommended leniency in late 2018. Mr. Flynn even agreed to delay his sentencing at the time to offer further cooperation by testifying against a former business associate in a case in Northern Virginia. But Mr. Flynn grew increasingly antagonistic in recent months and hired combative new lawyers in mid-2019.

See Which Witnesses the Mueller Report Relied on Most

A partially redacted report of the special counsel’s findings released on April 18 cited interviews with 43 individuals at least 10 times.

Those lawyers had tried to convince a federal judge that the F.B.I. had ambushed him as part of a plot by biased investigators, hoping that the case would be thrown out. But the judge rejected those accusations this month as baseless, and prosecutors reversed their stance, saying Mr. Flynn should be imprisoned.

Because Mr. Flynn has already pleaded guilty twice, he cannot unilaterally withdraw from the plea deal. The federal judge in the case, Emmet G. Sullivan of Federal District Court in the District of Columbia, has to sign off on Mr. Flynn’s request and will most likely give prosecutors a chance to respond and schedule a hearing on the matter.

Mr. Flynn’s gamble raises questions about whether he and his lawyers were making a play for a presidential pardon. Days into his presidency, Mr. Trump dismissed Mr. Flynn after learning he had lied to Vice President Mike Pence and other senior administration officials about his conversations with the Russian ambassador, but he has also said Mr. Flynn was treated badly by investigators.

In a relatively disjointed motion filed on Tuesday, Mr. Flynn’s lawyers try to make the case that their client lived up to his plea agreement, including helping the case against his former business associate Bijan Kian.

At his original sentencing hearing late in 2018, Mr. Flynn reasserted his guilt and acknowledged to prosecutors that he lied about working to influence American officials on behalf of Turkey, though prosecutors charged him only with lying to the F.B.I. as part of the deal to secure his cooperation. But they have made it clear they have evidence to charge him with secretly lobbying for Turkey, crimes that carry a stiffer sentence.

Mr. Kian was himself charged with violating foreign lobbying disclosure laws when he worked with Mr. Flynn. On the eve of Mr. Kian’s trial last year in Virginia, Mr. Flynn changed his story, which was critical of the government’s case. Mr. Kian was convicted, but the judge later threw out the charges, saying prosecutors had failed to make a strong enough case.

Mr. Flynn’s lawyers now say their client made no false statements about his work on behalf of Turkey. They say without evidence that prosecutors “concocted” the false statements and accused them of deceit.

“It is beyond ironic and completely outrageous that the prosecutors have persecuted Mr. Flynn, virtually bankrupted him, and put his entire family through unimaginable stress for years,” his lawyers wrote.

They said Mr. Flynn learned only later about problems with foreign lobbying disclosures submitted to the Justice Department. He has blamed his former lawyers for filing inaccurate forms without his knowledge and accused the government of retaliating against him for hiring new lawyers who refused to let their client lie in Mr. Kian’s trial.
Mr. Flynn’s lawyers were silent on the issue of his acknowledgment in court that he lied to the F.B.I. in the Russia investigation. It is unclear how that squares with his decisions to plead guilty both in 2017 and 2018.

In their recent sentencing memo asking the judge to sentence Mr. Flynn to up to six months in prison, prosecutors said he was no victim.

“Far from accepting the consequences of his unlawful actions, he has sought to blame almost every other person and entity involved in his case, including his former counsel,” they wrote.

Read More About Michael Flynn’s Case:

Prosecutors Ask That Michael Flynn Get Prison Time
Jan. 7, 2020


Judge Rejects Michael Flynn’s Claims in His Attacks on Prosecutors
Dec. 16, 2019


Prosecutors Could Ask for Prison Time for Michael Flynn
Sept. 10, 2019


Michael Flynn’s Lawyers Escalate Attacks on Prosecutors
Aug. 30, 2019


ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

Adam Goldman reports on the F.B.I. from Washington and is a two-time Pulitzer Prize winner. @adamgoldmanNYT 

PHOTO: Michael T. Flynn, President 
Trump’s former national security adviser, 
in 2018 in Washington. Credit: Tom Brenner 
for The New York Times

Wednesday, January 8, 2020

Noam Chomsky Says the U.S. Is a Rogue State and Suleimani’s Assassination Confirms It

"What's Past is Prologue..."

NATAMBU’S LAW states: “No matter how bad things are or appear to be one can rest assured, upon further investigation, that in reality things are FAR WORSE than anything one could possibly imagine”

REPEAT...(from 3 days ago)...

All,

We desperately need at least 2 million citizens to actively participate in a massive march on the white house and the Pentagon NOW...TODAY. It's absolutely imperative that we seriously marshall all of our antiwar strength throughout the entire country to engage in a colossal and ongoing civil disobedience campaign to stop the vile sinister criminal known forevermore as our very own IMPEACHED SCUMBAG-IN-CHIEF from dragging this country and the rest of the world down into the bloody sewer that is this maniac's most heartfelt desire. It's time to stop fucking around and PRETENDING that this unhinged monster and international disgrace is even sane let alone capable of resolving global conflict via rational political decisions and state diplomacy.

Ultimately we must not fail in our collective effort to remove this malevolent human malady from office and to aggressively oppose and resist with everything within us his clearly diabolical plans to use us all as cannon fodder in his neofascist fantasy of maintaining and extending the tyrannical madness that currently passes for "politics" in this rapidly disintegrating empire masquerading as a democratic Republic. Stay tuned and remain vigilant no matter what happens. Trust me: We're really gonna need it now, more than ever...

Kofi

https://truthout.org/…/noam-chomsky-us-is-a-rogue-state-and…

Interview
War And Peace


Noam Chomsky: US Is a Rogue State 
and Suleimani’s Assassination Confirms It
by C.J. Polychroniou
January 7, 2020
Truthout


PHOTO: Antiwar activists protest in front of the White House in Washington, D.C., on January 4, 2020. Andrew Caballero-Reynolds / AFP via Getty Images
Trump’s decision to assassinate one of Iran’s most prominent and highly respected military leaders, Maj. Gen. Qassim Suleimani, has added yet another name to the list of people killed by the U.S. — which many rightly see as the world’s biggest rogue state.

The assassination has escalated hostilities between Tehran and Washington and created an even more explosive situation in the politically volatile Middle East. As was to be expected, Iran has vowed to retaliate on its own terms for the killing of its general, while also announcing that it will withdraw from the Iran nuclear deal. Iraq’s parliament, in turn, has voted to expel all U.S. troops, but Trump has responded with threats of sanctions if the U.S. is forced to remove its troops from the country.

As world-renowned public intellectual Noam Chomsky points out in this exclusive interview for Truthout, the primary aim of U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East has been to control the region’s energy resources. Here Chomsky — a university professor emeritus at MIT and laureate professor of linguistics at the University of Arizona who has published more than 120 books on linguistics, global affairs, U.S. foreign policy, media studies, politics and philosophy — offers his analysis of Trump’s reckless act and its possible effects.

C.J. Polychroniou: Noam, the U.S. assassination of Iran’s Quds Force commander Qassim Suleimani has reaffirmed Washington’s long-held obsession with Tehran and its clerical regime, which goes all the way back to the late 1970s. What is the conflict between U.S. and Iran all about, and does the assassination of Suleimani constitute an act of war?

Noam Chomsky: Act of war? Perhaps we can settle on reckless international terrorism. It seems that Trump’s decision, on a whim, appalled high Pentagon officials who briefed him on options, on pragmatic grounds. If we wish to look beyond, we might ask how we would react in comparable circumstances.

Suppose that Iran were to murder the second-highest U.S. official, its top general, in the Mexico City international airport, along with the commander of a large part of the U.S.-supported army of an allied nation. Would that be an act of war? Others can decide. It is enough for us to recognize that the analogy is fair enough, and that the pretexts put forth by Washington collapse so quickly on examination that it would be embarrassing to run through them.

Suleimani was greatly respected — not only in Iran, where he was a kind of cult figure. This is recognized by U.S. experts on Iran. One of the most prominent experts, Vali Nasr (no dove, and who detests Suleimani), says that Iraqis, including Iraqi Kurds, “don’t see him as the nefarious figure that the West does, but they see him through the prism of defeating ISIS.” They have not forgotten that when the huge, heavily armed U.S.-trained Iraqi army quickly collapsed, and the Kurdish capital of Erbil, then Baghdad and all of Iraq were about to fall in the hands of ISIS [also known as Daesh], it was Suleimani and the Iraqi Shia militias he organized that saved the country. Not a small matter.

As for what the conflict is all about, the background reasons are not obscure. It has long been a primary principle of U.S. foreign policy to control the vast energy resources of the Middle East: to control, not necessarily to use. Iran has been central to this objective during the post-World War II period, and its escape from the U.S. orbit in 1979 has accordingly been intolerable.

The “obsession” can be traced to 1953, when Britain — the overlord of Iran since oil was discovered there — was unable to prevent the government from taking over its own resources and called on the global superpower to manage the operation. There is no space to review the course of the obsession since in detail, but some highlights are instructive.
Suppose that Iran were to murder the second-highest U.S. official, its top general, in the Mexico City international airport.


Britain called on Washington with some reluctance. To do so meant surrendering more of its former empire to the U.S. and declining even more to the role of “junior partner” in global management, as the foreign office recognized with dismay. The Eisenhower administration took over. It organized a military coup that overthrew the parliamentary regime and re-installed the Shah, restoring the oil concession to its rightful hands, with the U.S. taking over 40 percent of the former British concession. Interestingly, Washington had to force U.S. majors to accept this gift; they preferred to keep to cheaper Saudi oil (which the U.S. had taken over from Britain in a mini war during World War II). But under government coercion, they were forced to comply: one of those unusual but instructive incidents revealing how the government sometimes pursues long-term imperial interests over the objections of the powerful corporate sector that largely controls and even staffs it — with considerable resonance in U.S.-Iran relations in recent years.
The Shah proceeded to institute a harsh tyranny. He was regularly cited by Amnesty International as a leading practitioner of torture, always with strong U.S. support as Iran became one of the pillars of U.S. power in the region, along with the Saudi family dictatorship and Israel. Technically, Iran and Israel were at war. In reality, they had extremely close relations, which surfaced publicly after the overthrow of the Shah in 1979. The tacit relations between Israel and Saudi Arabia are surfacing much more clearly now within the framework of the reactionary alliance that the Trump administration is forging as a base for U.S. power in the region: the Gulf dictatorships, the Egyptian military dictatorship and Israel, linked to Modi’s India, Bolsonaro’s Brazil and other similar elements. A rare semblance of a coherent strategy in this chaotic administration.

The Carter administration strongly supported the Shah until the last moment. High U.S. officials — [Henry] Kissinger, [Dick] Cheney, [Donald] Rumsfeld — called on U.S. universities (mainly my own, MIT, over strong student protest but faculty acquiescence) to aid the Shah’s nuclear programs, even after he made clear that he was seeking nuclear weapons. When the popular uprising overthrew the Shah, the Carter administration was apparently split on whether to endorse the advice of de facto Israeli Ambassador Uri Lubrani, who counselled that “Tehran can be taken over by a very relatively small force, determined, ruthless, cruel. I mean the men who would lead that force will have to be emotionally geared to the possibility that they’d have to kill ten thousand people.”
It didn’t work, and soon Ayatollah Khomeini took over on an enormous wave of popular enthusiasm, establishing the brutal clerical autocracy that still reigns, crushing popular protests.

Shortly after, Saddam Hussein invaded Iran with strong U.S. backing, unaffected by his resort to chemical weapons that caused huge Iranian casualties; his monstrous chemical warfare attacks against Iraqi Kurds were denied by Reagan, who sought to blame Iran and blocked congressional condemnation.

Finally, the U.S. pretty much took over, sending naval forces to ensure Saddam’s control of the Gulf. After the U.S. guided missile cruiser Vincennes shot down an Iranian civilian airliner in a clearly marked commercial corridor, killing 290 passengers and returning to port to great acclaim and awards for exceptional service, Khomeini capitulated, recognizing that Iran cannot fight the U.S. President Bush then invited Iraqi nuclear scientists to Washington for advanced training in nuclear weapons production, a very serious threat against Iran.

Conflicts continued without a break, in more recent years focusing on Iran’s nuclear programs. These conflicts ended (in theory) with the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) in 2015, an agreement between Iran and the five permanent members of the UN, plus Germany, in which Iran agreed to sharply curtail its nuclear programs — none of them weapons programs — in return for Western concessions. The International Atomic Energy Agency, which carries out intensive inspections, reports that Iran fully lived up to the agreement. U.S. intelligence agrees.

The topic elicits much debate, unlike another question: Has the U.S. observed the agreement? Apparently not. The JCPOA states that all participants are committed not to impede in any way Iran’s reintegration into the global economy, particularly the global financial system, which the U.S. effectively controls. The U.S. is not permitted to interfere “in areas of trade, technology, finance and energy” and others.

While these topics are not investigated, it appears that Washington has been interfering steadily.

President Trump claims that his effective demolition of the JCPOA is an effort to negotiate an improvement. It’s a worthy objective, easily realized. Any concerns about Iranian nuclear threats can be overcome by establishing a nuclear weapons-free zone (NWFZ) in the Middle East, with intensive inspections like those successfully implemented under the JCPOA.

As we have discussed before, this is quite straightforward. Regional support is overwhelming. The Arab states initiated the proposal long ago, and continue to agitate for it, with the strong support of Iran and the former nonaligned countries (G-77, now 132 countries). Europe agrees. In fact, there is only one barrier: the U.S., which regularly vetoes the proposal when it comes up at the review meetings of the Non-Proliferation Treaty countries, most recently by Obama in 2015. The U.S. will not permit inspection of Israel’s enormous nuclear arsenal, or even concede its existence, though it is not in doubt. The reason is simple: under U.S. law (the Symington Amendment), conceding its existence would require terminating all aid to Israel.

So the simple method of ending the alleged concern about an Iranian threat is ruled out and the world must face grim prospects.

Since these topics are scarcely mentionable in the U.S., it is perhaps worthwhile to reiterate another forbidden matter: The U.S. and U.K. have a special responsibility to work to establish a NWFZ in the Middle East. They are formally committed to do so under Article 14 of UN Security Council Resolution 687, which they invoked in their effort to concoct some thin legal basis for their invasion of Iraq, claiming that Iraq had violated the Resolution with nuclear weapons programs. Iraq hadn’t, as they were soon forced to concede. But the U.S. continues to violate the Resolution to the present in order to protect its Israeli client and to allow Washington to violate U.S. law.

Interesting facts, which, unfortunately, are apparently too incendiary to see the light of day.

There’s no point reviewing the years that followed in the hands of the man “sent by God to save Israel from Iran,” in the words of the serious figure of the administration, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo.

Returning to the original question, there’s quite a lot to contemplate about what the conflict is about. In a phrase, primarily imperial power, damn the consequences.

The term “rogue state” (used widely by the U.S. State Department) refers to the pursuit of state interests without regard to accepted standards of international behavior and the basic principles of international law. Given that definition, isn’t the U.S. a star example of a rogue state?

State Department officials are not the only ones to use the term “rogue state.” It has also been used by prominent American political scientists — referring to the State Department. Not Trump’s, Clinton’s.

During the era between Reagan’s murderous terrorist atrocities in Central America and Bush’s invasion of Iraq, they recognized that for much of the world, the U.S. was “becoming the rogue superpower,” considered “the single greatest external threat to their societies,” and that, “In the eyes of much of the world, in fact, the prime rogue state today is the United States” (Harvard professor of the science of government and government adviser Samuel Huntington; President of the American Political Science Association Robert Jervis. Both in the main establishment journal, Foreign Affairs, 1999, 2001).
After Bush took over, qualifications were dropped. It was asserted as fact that the U.S. “has assumed many of the very features of the ‘rogue nations’ against which it has … done battle.” Others outside the U.S. mainstream might think of different words for the worst crime of the millennium, a textbook example of aggression without credible pretext, the “supreme international crime” of Nuremberg.


We are supposed to revere the U.S. Constitution. We must therefore revere Article VI, which declares that valid treaties shall be “the supreme law of the land.”
And others sometimes express their opinions. Gallup runs regular polls of international opinion. In 2013 (the Obama years), it asked for the first time, which country is the greatest threat to world peace. The U.S. won; no one else even came close. Far behind in second place was Pakistan, presumably inflated by the Indian vote. Iran — the greatest threat to world peace in U.S. discourse — was scarcely mentioned.

That was also the last time the question was asked, though there needn’t have been much concern. It does not seem to have been reported in the U.S.
We might ponder these questions a little further. We are supposed to revere the U.S. Constitution, especially conservatives. We must therefore revere Article VI, which declares that valid treaties shall be “the supreme law of the land” and officials must be bound by them. In the post-war years, by far the most important such treaty is the UN Charter, instituted under U.S. initiative. It bans “the threat or use of force” in international affairs; specifically, the common refrain that “all options are open” with regard to Iran. And all cases of resort to force unless explicitly authorized by the Security Council or in defense against armed attack (a narrowly construed notion) until the Security Council, which must be immediately notified, is able to act to terminate the attack.

We might consider what the world would look like if the U.S. Constitution were considered applicable to the U.S., but let’s put that interesting question aside — not, however, without mentioning that there is a respected profession, called “international lawyers and law professors,” who can learnedly explain that words don’t mean what they mean.

Iraq has struggled since the U.S. invasion in 2003 to maintain a balanced situation with both Washington and Tehran. However, the Iraqi parliament has voted after Suleimani’s assassination to expel all U.S. troops. Is this likely to happen? And, if it does, what impact would it have on future U.S.- Iraq-Iran relations, including the fight against ISIS?
We don’t know whether it will happen. Even if the Iraqi government orders the U.S. to leave, will it do so? It’s not obvious, and as always, public opinion in the U.S., if organized and committed, can help provide an answer.

As for ISIS, Trump has just given it another lease on life, just as he gave it a “get out of jail free” card when he betrayed Syrian Kurds, leaving them to the mercy of their bitter enemies Turkey and Assad after they had fulfilled their function of fighting the war against ISIS (with 11,000 casualties, as compared with half-dozen Americans). ISIS organized at first with jail breaks and is now free to do so again.

ISIS has been given a welcome gift in Iraq as well. The eminent Middle East historian Ervand Abrahamian observes:

The killing of Soleimani … has actually provided a wonderful opportunity for ISIS to recover. There will be a resurgence of ISIS very much in Mosul, northern Iraq. And that, paradoxically, will help Iran, because the Iraqi government will have no choice but to rely more and more on Iran to be able to contain ISIS [which led the defense of Iraq against the ISIS onslaught, under Suleimani’s command] … Trump has pulled out of north Iraq, of the area where ISIS was, pulled the rug out from the Kurds, and now he’s declared war on the pro-Iranian militias. And the Iraqi Army has not been in the past capable of dealing with ISIS. So, the obvious thing is now, the Iraqi government, how are they going to deal with the revival of ISIS? … they will have no choice but to actually rely more and more on Iran. So, Trump has actually undermined his own policy, if he wants to eliminate Iran’s influence in Iraq.

Much as W. Bush did when he invaded Iraq.

We shouldn’t forget, however, that enormous power can recover from muddle-headedness and failure — if the domestic population permits it to.

Putin appears to have outmaneuvered the U.S. not only on Syria, but almost everywhere else on the Middle East front. What is Moscow after in the Middle East, and what’s your explanation for the often infantile diplomacy displayed by the United States in the region and in fact around the world?

One goal, substantially achieved, was to gain control of Syria. Russia entered the conflict in 2015 after advanced weapons provided by the CIA to the mostly jihadi armies had stopped Assad’s forces. Russian aircraft turned the tide, and without concern for the incredible civilian toll, the Russian-backed coalition has taken control of most of the country. Russia is now the external arbiter.

Elsewhere, even among Washington’s Gulf allies, Putin has presented himself, apparently with some success, as the one trustworthy outside actor. Trump’s bull-in-a-China-shop diplomacy (if that is the right word) is winning few friends outside of Israel, on which he is lavishing gifts, and the other members of the reactionary alliance taking shape. Any thought of “soft power” has been pretty much abandoned. But U.S. reserves of hard power are enormous. No other country can impose harsh sanctions at will and compel third parties to honor them, at cost of expulsion from the international financial system. And, of course, no one else has hundreds of military bases around the world or anything like Washington’s advanced military power and ability to resort to force at will and with impunity. The idea of imposing sanctions on the U.S., or anything beyond tepid criticism, borders on ludicrous.

And so, it is likely to remain even as “in the eyes of much of the world, in fact, the prime rogue state today is the United States,” considerably more so than 20 years ago when these words were uttered, unless and until the population compels state power to pursue a different course.

This interview has been lightly edited for clarity and length. 

ABOUT THE INTERVIEWER:

C.J. Polychroniou is a political economist/political scientist who has taught and worked in universities and research centers in Europe and the United States. His main research interests are in European economic integration, globalization, the political economy of the United States and the deconstruction of neoliberalism’s political and economic project. He is a regular contributor to Truthout as well as a member of Truthout’s Public Intellectual Project. He has published several books and his articles have appeared in a variety of journals, magazines, newspapers and popular news websites. Many of his publications have been translated into several foreign languages, including Croatian, French, Greek, Italian, Portuguese, Spanish and Turkish. He is the author of Optimism Over Despair: Noam Chomsky On Capitalism, Empire, and Social Change, an anthology of interviews with Chomsky originally published at Truthout and collected by Haymarket Books.

PHOTO: Antiwar activists protest in front of the White House in Washington, D.C., on January 4, 2020. Andrew Caballero-Reynolds / AFP via Getty Images