Voices from Russia

Tuesday, 7 March 2017

Tom Perez: Is It Wise to Continue the Clintons’ Legacy?


Many see the new Democratic National Committee Chairman Tom Perez as a continuation of the Clintons’ political legacy, but concerns have arisen that the party needs to urgently chart a new course. The long-time Democratic insider and high-ranking member of the party élite was most recently Obama’s Secretary of Labour, prior to which some considered him as a possible running mate for Hillary Clinton. Perez earlier served under Bill Clinton’s government as a civil rights attorney, so he has extensive experience in government, but in today’s era, this also makes him the epitome of the “establishment”, which some observers say is the last thing that the Democrats need to be associated with nowadays. However, many painted Perez’s DNC rival Keith Ellison by many as being a “political insurgent” of the Sanders brand, and commentators compared the Perez-Ellison DNC race to a re-run of the Clinton-Sanders primary last year.

Both candidates rejected this comparison as a media-driven story, and Perez was quick to signal party unity by immediately appointing Ellison as deputy chairman of the party right after his narrow victory in the second round of voting. However, this didn’t stop the criticism coming in from some of Sanders’ supporters, who felt that the party had made a major mistake by continuing with the Clinton political legacy and forcing their faction to play second fiddle yet again. Even Trump got involved in the social media trash-talking by tweeting:

The race for DNC Chairman was, of course, totally “rigged”. Bernie’s guy, like Bernie himself, never had a chance. Clinton demanded Perez!

This seemingly channelled what many Sanders supporters were feeling was another unfortunate case of déjà vu. The President continued with his taunts by later tweeting:

Congratulations to Thomas Perez, who has just been named Chairman of the DNC. I could not be happier for him, or for the Republican Party!

It’s obvious that Trump has a political agenda in what he says, but he does hint at a more objective point about whether it wise or not for the Democrats to continue with Hilary’s failed political legacy by picking her surrogate as the party’s next leader instead of embracing the change that its most enthusiastic supporters hoped would radically breathe new life into the stale party.

4 March 2017

Andrew Korybko

Sputnik International


Sunday, 5 March 2017

5 March 2017. Why Do the Republicans Hate Syria and Decent Muslims? Why Do They LOVE the KSA and Radical Islamists?



The Neoliberals (both “liberals” and “conservatives” alike) hate decent Muslim lands like Syria and support radical anti-Christian Islamists like the KSA. The Democrats are bad in this, but the Repugs are far worse. They kiss the naked ass of the Saudis for all to see, in the most humiliating ways possible. The USA refuses to stick up for the rights of the Christian “guest workers” in the KSA. IT REFUSES… so all the Repug talk of helping Christians in the Middle East is bootless and airy propaganda for the stupid and credulous. If one doesn’t stand up for the oppressed Christians in the KSA, then, one is a hypocritical poseur if one screams about “persecuted Christians in the Middle East”.

Don’t forget… the neoliberals (both Dems and Repugs) supported and abetted the terrorist Bin Laden… they both attacked Libya and Iraq for no cause whatsoever (except for the fact that Iraq and Libya were socialist states that gave their oil wealth to the people, not American fatcat oligarchs). Now, they want you to hate Syria for no good reason. Don’t fall for it.


Friday, 3 March 2017

Democrats Can’t Stop Lying About Russia Ties

00 Vitaly Podvitsky. Putin did It! 2014


McCarthyite-style hysteria was in full force again on Thursday, as Democrats continue to scramble to link members of the Trump administration to Russia. After collecting the scalp of General Michael Flynn, the Democrats now set their sights on Attorney General Jeff Sessions… attempting to oust him for speaking to Russian Ambassador S I Kislyak during his time in the Senate Armed Services Committee. Senator Claire McCaskill (D-MO) landed herself in hot water for chiming in, tweeting that she never once met with a Russian ambassador during her time in the Senate Armed Services Committee:

I’ve been on the Armed Services Committee for 10 years. No call or meeting with Russian ambassador. Ever. Ambassadors call members of Foreign Relations Committee.

Unfortunately for the Missouri Senator, the internet doesn’t forget. People quickly pointed up that she twice tweeted about the Russian ambassador… in 2013 and 2015. She wrote on 30 January 2013:

Off to meeting w/Russian Ambassador. Upset about the arbitrary/cruel decision to end all US adoptions, even those in process.

On 6 August 2015, McCaskill tweeted:

Today, calls with British, Russian, and German Ambassadors re: Iran deal. #doingmyhomework.

The Senator quickly attempted to distance herself from the hypocritical tweets, telling NBC News:

The meeting didn’t have anything to do with the Armed Services. I’ve never met with him one-on-one.

This comes one day after the New York Times revealed that Obama officials were actively spreading information about Trump’s alleged Russia connections to undermine the current administration:

In the Obama administration’s last days, some White House officials scrambled to spread information about Russian efforts to undermine the presidential election… and about possible contacts between associates of President-elect Donald J Trump and Russians… across the government.

Former Obama administration officials speaking anonymously to the paper claimed:

One of our goals was to leave a clear trail of intelligence for government investigators.

White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer responded to the NYT claims:

The only new piece of information that came to light is that political appointees in the Obama administration sought to create a false narrative to make an excuse for their own defeat in the election. There continues to be no “there” there.

The report also outlined the efforts taken during former President Obama’s final days in the White House. To make sure that the intelligence information they collected on “Russian meddling” reached as many people as possible, they kept reports at low classification levels so that they could share it widely within the US government and even with European allies.

On Wednesday, hot on the heels of a widely praised speech by President Trump before Congress, an unnamed Justice Department official leaked to the media that Sessions had two conversations with Ambassador Kislyak last year when he was still a Senator. During Sessions’ 10 January confirmation hearing, they asked him if he had contact with Russians during his time on the Trump campaign, and he asserted that he didn’t. They didn’t ask him about his time in the Senate. The Washington Post pointed up that the conversations took place once in a group of ambassadors who approached Sessions at a Heritage Foundation event during the Republican National Convention in July 2016, and again in an office meeting on 8 September of that same year. Sessions wasn’t working for the campaign at those times. Sessions spokesman Sarah Isgur Flores stated:

There was absolutely nothing misleading about his answer. Last year, the senator had over 25 conversations with foreign ambassadors as a senior member of the Armed Services Committee, including the British, Korean, Japanese, Polish, Indian, Chinese, Canadian, Australian, German, and Russian ambassadors. He was asked during the hearing about communications between Russia and the Trump campaign… not about meetings he took as a senator and a member of the Armed Services Committee.”

Additionally, Wikileaks revealed that the new darling of the left, Republican Senator John McCain, requested donations from Russian officials for his own presidential campaign in 2008. The Russian Mission to the UN stated in response to McCain’s request:

We received a letter from Senator John McCain requesting a financial contribution to his Presidential campaign. In this connection, we’d like to reiterate that Russian officials, the Permanent Mission of the Russian Federation to the UN, or the Russian Government don’t finance political activity in foreign countries.

The Senator claimed that his staffers mistakenly sent the donation request. McCain is one of the most prominent voices speaking on the unsubstantiated claims of Russian interference and the Trump administration’s connections to Russia. Repeatedly, he’s advocated that the USA take a more aggressive stance against the Kremlin. In January, McCain declared that Russia was a bigger threat to the USA than ISIS was.

2 March 2017

Cassandra Fairbanks

Sputnik International


Tuesday, 28 February 2017

Blame Russia, Avoid Self-Criticism

00 Vitaly Podvitsky. The Russians Did It All! 2016


Arrogant liberals’ partisan hypocrisy, overlaid with heavy doses of bourgeois identity politics and professional-class contempt for working-class whites, is no tiny part of how and why the Democrats handed all three branches of the federal government along with most state governments and the white working-class vote to the ever more radically reactionary white-nationalist Republican Party. Ordinary people can smell the rank two-facedness of it all, believe it or not. They want nothing to do with snotty know-all liberals who give dismal Dollar Dems a pass on policies liberals only seem capable of denouncing when nasty Republicans enact them. Contrary to my online rant, much of the liberal Democratic campus-town crowd seems to feel if anything validated… yes, validated, of all things… by the awfulness of Herr Trump. It exhibits no capacity for shame or self-criticism, even in the wake of their politics having collapsed at the presidential, Congressional, and state levels.

A media-fed mania for citing dubious reports from the “intelligence community” to blame Trump’s victory on alleged Russian interference in “our [purported great] democracy” assists that egregious failure. Screaming, “Russia did it” whilst citing the CIA (of all sources) is apparently liberals’ favourite new way of avoiding any serious confrontation with how their corporate and imperial party of choice (the dismal demobilising Dollar Democrats) opened the barn door to Trump and the GOP. The formula is this:

Say “Russia elected Trump” along with racism, sexism, and “stupid uneducated white people”, and feel both confirmed and superior. Resume your privileged life as usual, protesting on occasion in pink pussy hates and hoping for the presumed friends of democracy in the arch-authoritarian Deep State to unseat Trump from above.

Along the way, liberals are aiding and abetting an authoritarian threat even worse than the quasi-fascistic (though thankfully incompetent) orange-haired beast and his band of slimy billionaires and white-nationalist swamp creatures. I don’t share Glenn Greenwald’s hope that the Democratic Party will restore itself as an “effective political force”, or his sense that such restoration would be the most important way to resist Trump or even his belief that Trump was “democratically elected”. Still, even with those significant qualifications, I must for the most part heartily endorse his following recent comments on Democracy Now!:

The Trump presidency is extremely dangerous. They want to dismantle the environment. They want to eliminate the safety net. They want to empower billionaires. They want to enact bigoted policies against Muslims and immigrants and so many others. It’s important to resist them. There are lots of really great ways to resist them, such as getting courts to restrain them, citizen activism, and, most important of all, having the Democratic Party engage in self-critique to ask itself how it can be a more effective political force in the USA after it’s collapsed on all levels. That isn’t what this resistance is now doing. What they’re doing instead is trying to take maybe the only faction worse than Donald Trump, which is the Deep State, the CIA, with its histories of atrocity, and say they ought to almost engage in like a soft coup, where they take the elected president and prevent him from enacting his policies. Moreover, I think it’s extremely dangerous to do that. Even if you’re somebody who believes that both the CIA and the Deep State, on the one hand, and the Trump presidency, on the other, are extremely dangerous, as I do, there’s a huge difference between the two, which is that Trump was democratically elected and is subject to democratic controls, as these courts just demonstrated, as the media is showing, as citizens are proving. On the other hand, nobody elected the CIA. They’re barely subject to democratic controls at all. Therefore, to urge that the CIA and the intelligence community empower itself to undermine the elected branches of government is insanity. That’s a prescription for destroying democracy overnight in the name of saving it. Yet, that’s what so many, not just neocons, but the neocons’ allies in the Democratic Party, are now urging and cheering. It’s incredibly warped and dangerous to watch them do that.

25 February 2017

Paul Street

Greanville Post



« Previous PageNext Page »

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.