The central issue in the U.S. Presidential campaign can’t even be discussed in U.S. newsmedia, because America’s media have been almost uniformly complicit all along in hiding from the American public the crucial factual information that’s necessary in order for the public to vote in an intelligent and truthfully informed way about it. No news medium wants to report its own having been complicit in anything; so, the cover-up here just continues; it has a life of its own, even though it’s a life that brings the world closer and closer to a situation which would kill billions of people, as things get increasingly out-of-control the longer this coverup continues. The cycle of virtually uniform lying thus persists, despite the growing danger it produces. This article will need to be lengthy, because the American public have been almost consistently lied-to about so many very important things — things associated with the nation’s central issue — an issue even bigger than terrorism, and than global warming, and than rising economic inequality and corruption, but which is still virtually ignored. This article is thus intended to be ‘Drano’ for a political system that has become clogged by lies just jammed down into it, now backing up and pouring out onto America’s political floor. The overflowing sludge has got to be cleaned up, and discarded. Or else — and very suddenly — it will kill us all.
This central issue is whether or not to continue to move forward with the American government’s plan, ever since the Soviet Union and its military alliance the Warsaw Pact ended in 1991, to extend NATO — the anti-Russia military club — right up to Russia’s borders, surround Russia with NATO nuclear missiles a mere five minutes flight-time to Moscow, and simultaneously build a “Ballistic Missile Defense” or “Anti Ballistic Missile” (BMD or ABM) system to nullify Russia’s retaliatory missiles against an unannounced blitz U.S.-NATO invasion to take over, if not totally eliminate, Russia and its resistance to U.S. power. This operation is an ugly reality, but it is an American-led reality, and the outcome of the 2016 U.S. Presidential election will bring it into its final stage, either by ending it, or by culminating it — two drastically different outcomes, but one side or the other will prevail in this political contest, and the present article links to the documentation that America’s voters will need to be aware of that shows not only that they’ve been lied-to, but how and why they’ve been lied-to. The documentation is all-important, especially because the facts that are being documented have been hidden so successfully for so long. This is not a world that Americans want to know, but it is a world that especially the few Americans who are in control, don’t want the American public to know. That’s a toxic combination (public ignorance, which the people in control want to continue), but it is tragically real (as the documentation here will make clear).
U.S. President Barack Obama has stated, on many occasions, that the U.S. is the only “indispensable” country, and that any country which refuses to capitulate to American global supremacy is an enemy. This applies especially to Russia and to China — two formerly communist nations. Thus, the ‘Cold War’ is being resumed, and U.S. arms-makers are booming again, even though the ideological excuse (the “red scare,” communism) is now gone.
“The United States is and remains the one indispensable nation. That has been true for the century passed and it will be true for the century to come. … Russia’s aggression toward former Soviet states unnerves capitals in Europe, while China’s economic rise and military reach worries its neighbors. From Brazil to India, rising middle classes compete with us, and governments seek a greater say in global forums. … It will be your generation’s task to respond to this new world. The question we face, the question each of you will face, is not whether America will lead, but how we will lead — not just to secure our peace and prosperity, but also extend peace and prosperity around the globe.”
He was telling West Point graduates there, that economic competition can become a cause for America to go to war, and that America’s global supremacy is their job to enforce.
Obama placed this into a moralizing framework, as he always so skillfully does (for propaganda-purposes; he’s terrifically gifted at that), by saying to those cadets:
“America’s willingness to apply force around the world is the ultimate safeguard against chaos, and America’s failure to act in the face of Syrian brutality or Russian provocations not only violates our conscience, but invites escalating aggression in the future. … In the 21st century American isolationism is not an option. We don’t have a choice to ignore what happens beyond our borders. … As the Syrian civil war spills across borders, the capacity of battle-hardened extremist groups to come after us only increases. Regional aggression that goes unchecked — whether in southern Ukraine or the South China Sea, or anywhere else in the world — will ultimately impact our allies and could draw in our military. We can’t ignore what happens beyond our boundaries. And beyond these narrow rationales, I believe we have a real stake, an abiding self-interest, in making sure our children and our grandchildren grow up in a world where schoolgirls are not kidnapped and where individuals are not slaughtered because of tribe or faith or political belief. I believe that a world of greater freedom and tolerance is not only a moral imperative, it also helps to keep us safe.”
He was equating there the imposition of American control, as being “a world of greater freedom and tolerance,” which “helps to keep us safe.” Was it that, and did it do that, in Iraq? What about in Libya? What did it do for Ukraine? Is it really doing that in Syria? What about all of the refugees that are pouring out of all of those countries, which are being ‘saved’ by Obama’s policy, which has been America’s policy for decades, and which is not challenged, and which is bipartisan in every regard except for the style of lying rhetoric that’s being used to ‘justify’ it?
Obama’s predecessor in office, George W. Bush, was working on the same plan, when he invaded Iraq in 2003. His allegations that he was certain that Saddam Hussein was rebuilding his nuclear-weapons program, and saying against “Saddam’s WMD program” that “a report came out of the Atomic — the IAEA that they were six months away from developing a weapon. I don’t know what more evidence we need”, all of it were just bald lies from him, because all of it was false, and he knew that it was false. He knew that there was no such ‘IAEA’ ‘report’. And the press didn’t even challenge him on it, but instead just parroted the President’s lies as if they should automatically be taken as truths. (And the press also hid the IAEA’s immediate announcement that there was no such report.) It’s happening again, but the stakes this time are even more dangerous.
We’re going into a Presidential election, in which one candidate, Hillary Clinton, clearly wants to continue the policy that has been in place since 1990 (and which her husband played a major role in), and in which the other candidate, Donald Trump, wants to stop it — he says we should end it. So, he is accused of being a ‘Soviet agent’. The same aristocracy that own the ‘news’ media and that control both of the political Parties, is being threatened by Trump’s repudiation of their program. They use moralisms — rightist ones for Republicans, and leftist ones for Democrats — to condemn him, but the real reason they are determined to defeat him is to continue their war which (on its U.S. side) never really was against communism; it was always a war for global conquest, global control; that’s how America’s controllers have been controlling this country since at least 1990. They want to continue it, though it’s heading all of us toward disaster.
In support of this aggressive agenda — a metastatically cancerous NATO — Obama in 2014 perpetrated a very bloody Ukrainian coup (propagandized as ‘democracy demonstrations’), carried out by U.S.-paid rabid racist-anti-Russian fascists, nazis actually (and from a tradition in Ukraine that descended from the pro-Hitler, anti-Stalin, side of Ukraine during World War II — the side that did Ukraine’s pogroms, etc.) and which had been allied with the Axis powers during WW II — but that now were in the pay of the U.S. government.
Some of the top members of Congress who have responsibility over foreign affairs refuse even to become acquainted with the evidence disproving the U.S. government’s lies on this. Elizabeth Murray was shocked to find in government officials, this intentional refusal to see evidence. She had served as Deputy National Intelligence Officer for the Near East in the National Intelligence Council before retiring after a 27-year career in the U.S. government. (She should be the head of the CIA.) On 24 July 2016, in an article titled “Rep. Rick Larsen Bases Russia Policy on Myth”, she described her efforts to inform congressman Larsen about the reality of the U.S. operation in Ukraine. Wikipedia says: “Richard Ray ‘Rick’ Larsen is the United States Representative for Washington’s 2nd congressional district and a member of the Democratic Party. … Larsen is a member of the House Armed Services Committee and the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. … He formerly worked as director of public affairs for the Washington State Dental Association and as a lobbyist for the dental profession. … the Second District was represented by future U.S. Senator Henry M. ‘Scoop’ Jackson between 1941 and 1953.” (Jackson later became famous as “the Senator from Boeing,” the first of the Democratic Party neoconservatives.)
Murray wrote (and the links here are added by me):
I mentioned to Rep. Larsen that I had just returned from Russia with a U.S. delegation, and that all the people in Russia I had spoken with — including teachers, students, journalists, medical doctors, entrepreneurs and war veterans — had no desire for a nuclear war with the United States, but instead expressed the wish for peaceful, normalized relations . . . During our time in Yalta, I had organized a ‘swim for peace’ with Americans and Russian war vets swimming together in the Black Sea, which had caused quite a stir in local Russian language media. I explained to Rep. Larsen my understanding of why the Russian public is suspicious about U.S. moves in the region (based on what I heard from people there), and why they would expect the United States to be the first to make a unilateral confidence-building measure in the direction of nuclear disarmament. Russians were savvy to the Nuland ‘Yats’ youtube recording (in which Victoria Nuland is distinctly heard telling U.S. ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt that ‘Yats is the guy’ just prior to the regime change in which Arseniy Yatsenyuk became prime minister, and which directly implicated the U.S. in the Ukrainian coup), felt threatened by the recent NATO/Operation Anakonda maneuvers that took place during our delegation’s visit, and were extremely concerned about other provocative U.S. moves in the region, including economic sanctions on Russia and Crimea, the latter enacted after a majority of Crimeans voted to rejoin Russia in response to what they saw as outside interference in the affairs of Ukraine.
Larsen immediately responded with rebuttals, stating flat-out he didn’t believe there was a U.S. role in the Ukrainian events — that what I’d just told him was ‘not what I’ve been hearing’ – and he went on to talk about how the Baltic states felt threatened by Russia, etc. He didn’t know what ‘Operation Anakonda’ was and seemed unaware that the largest-ever NATO military maneuvers since WWII had just taken place on Russia’s borders. I offered to send his office additional information about that and the Ukrainian events – an offer he ignored.
The path we’re on can end only in one of two ways: Either the U.S. ‘news’ media will get real and start reporting the crucial realities (such as that the aggression in Ukraine wasn’t Putin’s ‘seizure’ of Crimea but the immediately prior coup — and its necessary ethnic cleansing afterwards — by Obama’s hirees, which started being organized by him no later than 1 March 2013, and which culminated nearly a year later), these being the crucial realities that contradict the official lies and thus might (if we’re extremely lucky) compel the U.S. government to reverse its present course; or else, there will be a surprise blitz attack by U.S.-NATO against Russia, or else by Russia against U.S.-NATO. The closer we get to the end of this matter, the more difficult the former option becomes, and the more inevitable the latter option — a blitz attack (by either side) — becomes. That’s the reality.
Obama’s ‘mono-polar world’ is a fiction, and the sooner that he and his Big Lie can be exposed (by the Western press, to the Western publics), the safer everyone will be. Discomforts on the parts of those who have promulgated and propagandized that lie will be vastly less than the disastrous alternative, which would destroy the world for everyone.
* * *
Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.