{"id":83781,"date":"2016-12-05T12:00:07","date_gmt":"2016-12-05T12:00:07","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/?p=83781"},"modified":"2016-12-02T18:51:48","modified_gmt":"2016-12-02T18:51:48","slug":"what-can-go-wrong","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/2016\/12\/what-can-go-wrong\/","title":{"rendered":"What Can Go Wrong?"},"content":{"rendered":"

30 Nov 2016 – <\/em>That he may not be \u201cqualified\u201d is unimportant.
\nThat he\u2019s never held a government or elected position is unimportant.
\nThat on a personal level he may be a shmuck is unimportant.<\/p>\n

What counts to me mainly at this early stage is that he \u2013 as opposed to dear Hillary \u2013 is unlikely to start a war against Russia. His questioning of the absolute sacredness of NATO, calling it \u201cobsolete\u201d, and his meeting with Democratic Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard, an outspoken critic of US regime-change policy, specifically Syria, are encouraging signs.<\/p>\n

Even more so is his appointment of General Michael Flynn as National Security Adviser. Flynn dined last year in Moscow with Vladimir Putin at a gala celebrating RT (Russia Today), the Russian state\u2019s English-language, leftist-leaning TV channel. Flynn now carries the stigma in the American media as an individual who does not see Russia or Putin as the devil. It is truly remarkable how nonchalantly American journalists can look upon the possibility of a war with Russia, even a nuclear war.<\/p>\n

(I can now expect a barrage of emails from my excessively politically-correct readers about Flynn\u2019s alleged anti-Islam side. But that, even if true, is irrelevant to this discussion of avoiding a war with Russia.)<\/p>\n

I think American influence under Trump could also inspire a solution to the bloody Russia-Ukraine crisis, which is the result of the US overthrow of the democratically-elected Ukrainian government in 2014 to further advance the US\/NATO surrounding of Russia; after which he could end the US-imposed sanctions against Russia, which hardly anyone in Europe benefits from or wants; and then \u2013 finally! \u2013 an end to the embargo against Cuba. What a day for celebration that will be! Too bad that Fidel won\u2019t be around to enjoy it.<\/p>\n

We may have other days of celebration if Trump pardons or in some other manner frees Chelsea Manning, Julian Assange, and\/or Edward Snowden. Neither Barack Obama nor Hillary Clinton would do this, but I think there\u2019s at least a chance with the Donald. And those three heroes may now enjoy feeling at least a modicum of hope. Picture a meeting of them all together on some future marvelous day with you watching it on a video.<\/p>\n

Trump will also probably not hold back on military actions against radical Islam because of any fear of being called anti-Islam. He\u2019s repulsed enough by ISIS to want to destroy them, something that can\u2019t always be said about Mr. Obama.<\/p>\n

International trade deals, written by corporate lawyers for the benefit of their bosses, with little concern about the rest of us, may have rougher sailing in the Trump White House than is usually the case with such deals.<\/p>\n

The mainstream critics of Trump foreign policy should be embarrassed, even humbled, by what they supported in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and Syria. Instead, what bothers them about the president-elect is his lack of desire to make the rest of the world in America\u2019s image. He appears rather to be more concerned with the world not making America in its<\/em> image.<\/p>\n

In the latest chapter of Alice in Trumpland he now says that he does not plan to prosecute Hillary Clinton, that he has an \u201copen mind\u201d about a climate-change accord from which he had vowed to withdraw the United States, and that he\u2019s no longer certain that torturing terrorism suspects is a good idea. So whatever fears you may have about certain of his expressed weird policies \u2026 just wait \u2026 they may fall by the wayside just as easily; although I still think that on a personal level he\u2019s a [two-syllable word: first syllable is a synonym for a donkey; second syllable means \u201can opening\u201d]<\/p>\n

Trump\u2019s apparently deep-seated need for approval may continue to succumb poorly to widespread criticism and protests. Poor little Donald \u2026 so powerful \u2026 yet so vulnerable.<\/p>\n

The Trump dilemma, as well as the whole Hillary Clinton mess, could have probably been avoided if Bernie Sanders had been nominated. That large historical \u201cif\u201d is almost on a par with the Democrats choosing Harry Truman to replace Henry Wallace in 1944 as the ailing Roosevelt\u2019s vice-president. Truman brought us a charming little thing called the Cold War, which in turn gave us McCarthyism. But Wallace, like Sanders, was just a little too damn leftist for the refined Democratic Party bosses.<\/p>\n

State-Owned Media: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly<\/strong><\/p>\n

On November 16, at a State Department press briefing, department spokesperson John Kirby was having one of his frequent adversarial dialogues with Gayane Chichakyan, a reporter for RT (Russia Today); this time concerning US charges of Russia bombing hospitals in Syria and blocking the UN from delivering aid to the trapped population. When Chichakyan asked for some detail about these charges, Kirby replied: \u201cWhy don\u2019t you ask your defense ministry?\u201d<\/p>\n

GK: Do you \u2013 can you give any specific information on when Russia or the Syrian Government blocked the UN from delivering aid? Just any specific information.<\/p>\n

KIRBY: There hasn\u2019t been any aid delivered in the last month.<\/p>\n

GK: And you believe it was blocked exclusively by Russia and the Syrian Government?<\/p>\n

KIRBY: There\u2019s no question in our mind that the obstruction is coming from the regime and from Russia. No question at all.<\/p>\n

\u2026<\/p>\n

MATTHEW LEE (Associated Press): Let me \u2013- hold on, just let me say: Please be careful about saying \u201cyour defense minister\u201d and things like that. I mean, she\u2019s a journalist just like the rest of us are, so it\u2019s -\u2013 she\u2019s asking pointed questions, but they\u2019re not \u2013<\/p>\n

KIRBY: From a state-owned -\u2013 from a state-owned \u2013<\/p>\n

LEE: But they\u2019re not \u2013<\/p>\n

KIRBY: From a state-owned outlet, Matt.<\/p>\n

LEE: But they\u2019re not \u2013<\/p>\n

KIRBY: From a state-owned outlet that\u2019s not independent.<\/p>\n

LEE: The questions that she\u2019s asking are not out of line.<\/p>\n

KIRBY: I didn\u2019t say the questions were out of line.<\/p>\n

\u2026\u2026<\/p>\n

KIRBY: I\u2019m sorry, but I\u2019m not going to put Russia Today on the same level with the rest of you who are representing independent media outlets.<\/p>\n

One has to wonder if State Department spokesperson Kirby knows that in 2011 Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, speaking about RT, declared<\/a>: \u201cThe Russians have opened an English-language network. I\u2019ve seen it in a few countries, and it is quite instructive.\u201d<\/p>\n

I also wonder how Mr. Kirby deals with reporters from the BBC, a STATE-OWNED television and radio entity in the UK, broadcasting in the US and all around the world.<\/p>\n

Or the state-owned Australian Broadcasting Corporation, described by Wikipedia as follows: \u201cThe corporation provides television, radio, online and mobile services throughout metropolitan and regional Australia, as well as overseas \u2026 and is well regarded for quality and reliability as well as for offering educational and cultural programming that the commercial sector would be unlikely to supply on its own.\u201d<\/p>\n

There\u2019s also Radio Free Europe, Radio Free Asia, Radio Liberty (Central\/Eastern Europe), and Radio Marti (Cuba); all (US) state-owned, none \u201cindependent\u201d, but all deemed worthy enough by the United States to feed to the world.<\/p>\n

And let\u2019s not forget what Americans have at home: PBS (Public Broadcasting Service) and NPR (National Public Radio), which would have a near-impossible time surviving without large federal government grants. How independent does this leave them? Has either broadcaster ever unequivocally opposed a modern American war? There\u2019s good reason NPR has long been known as National Pentagon Radio. But it\u2019s part of American media\u2019s ideology to pretend that it doesn\u2019t have any ideology.<\/p>\n

As to the non-state American media \u2026 There are about 1400 daily newspapers in the United States. Can you name a single paper, or a single TV network, that was unequivocally opposed to the American wars carried out against Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, Yugoslavia, Panama, Grenada, and Vietnam while they were happening, or shortly thereafter? Or even opposed to any two of these seven wars? How about one? In 1968, six years into the Vietnam war, the Boston Globe<\/em> (February 18, 1968) surveyed the editorial positions of 39 leading US papers concerning the war and found that \u201cnone advocated a pull-out\u201d. Has the phrase \u201cinvasion of Vietnam\u201d ever appeared in the US mainstream media?<\/p>\n

In 2003, leading cable station MSNBC took the much-admired Phil Donahue off the air because of his opposition to the calls for war in Iraq. Mr. Kirby would undoubtedly call MSNBC \u201cindependent\u201d.<\/p>\n

If the American mainstream media were officially state-controlled, would they look or sound significantly different when it comes to US foreign policy?<\/p>\n

Soviet observation: \u201cThe only difference between your propaganda and our propaganda is that you believe yours.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n

On November 25, the Washington Post<\/em> ran an article entitled: \u201cResearch ties \u2018fake news\u2019 to Russia.\u201d It\u2019s all about how sources in Russia are flooding American media and the Internet with phoney stories designed as \u201cpart of a broadly effective strategy of sowing distrust in U.S. democracy and its leaders\u201d.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe sophistication of the Russian tactics,\u201d the article says, \u201cmay complicate efforts by Facebook and Google to crack down on \u2018fake news\u2019.\u201d<\/p>\n

The Post<\/em> states that the Russian tactics included \u201cpenetrating the computers of election officials in several states and releasing troves of hacked emails that embarrassed Clinton in the final months of her campaign.\u201d (Heretofore this had been credited to Wikileaks.)<\/p>\n

The story is simply bursting with anti-Russian references:<\/p>\n