Tag Archives: President Obama

Obama Enters the Media Wars – Why His Recent Attack on Free Speech is So Dangerous and Radical, by Michael Krieger

President Obama thinks the free flow of information needs to be restricted for “basic truthiness tests.” It can be inferred that such tests will be administered by the government. From Michael Krieger at libertyblitzkrieg.com:

Control of the news media is an instrumental, key feature to any totalitarian government. In contrast, the primary reason this experiment known as the United States has lasted so long under relatively free conditions is due to the preservation of free speech (and press) via the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

In case you haven’t read it in a while, here’s the text:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Nowhere in there do I see an exception for “conspiracy theories,” but apparently Constitutional scholar Barack Obama has an alternative interpretation.

As reported by AFP:
Pittsburgh (AFP) – President Barack Obama on Thursday decried America’s “wild, wild west” media environment for allowing conspiracy theorists a broad platform and destroying a common basis for debate.

Recalling past days when three television channels delivered fact-based news that most people trusted, Obama said democracy require citizens to be able to sift through lies and distortions.

“We are going to have to rebuild within this wild-wild-west-of-information flow some sort of curating function that people agree to,” Obama said at an innovation conference in Pittsburgh.

“There has to be, I think, some sort of way in which we can sort through information that passes some basic truthiness tests and those that we have to discard, because they just don’t have any basis in anything that’s actually happening in the world,” Obama added.

“That is hard to do, but I think it’s going to be necessary, it’s going to be possible,” he added.

“The answer is obviously not censorship, but it’s creating places where people can say ‘this is reliable’ and I’m still able to argue safely about facts and what we should do about it.”

The above may sound good on a superficial level to people with zero critical thinking skills, but even the most elementary analysis exposes it as the obvious and dangerous attack on free speech that it is. Let’s zero in on a few things he said in closer detail.

He describes the media environment as the “wild, wild west.” Kind of sounds like an environment in which people are free to say, publish or record whatever they want, and let the chips fall where they may. Seems consistent with the first amendment to me.

He notes that there needs to be “some sort of way in which we can sort through information that passes some basic truthiness tests and those that we have to discard.” This sounds good on the surface because, after all, who doesn’t want truth? The problem lies in the fact that governments can and do lie all the time about stuff of monumental significance. Let’s take the Iraq war for example. As I discussed in August’s post, Questioning Hillary’s Health is Not Conspiracy Theory:

Of course, the New York Times rendering judgment on those pushing conspiracy theories would be downright hilarious if it weren’t so sad. For example, the paper itself exhibited no such restraint when it came to peddling U.S. government conspiracies about Iraq in the run up to one of the most inhumane, unnecessary and destructive foreign policy blunders in American history. In fact, the paper was ultimately so embarrassed by its own behavior, it issued a statement in 2004 titled, FROM THE EDITORS; The Times and Iraq.

Meanwhile, there were millions of people in the “wild west” of opinion making yelling and screaming that the government was misleading the public about Iraq in order to go to war. So who got it right, the New York Times, or the wild, wild west?

To continue reading: Obama Enters the Media Wars – Why His Recent Attack on Free Speech is So Dangerous and Radical

Obama says nations vow to take in twice as many refugees, by Darlene Superville

Oh good, lots more refugees! Of course, US military and foreign policy is responsible for creating many of them in the Middle East. From Darlene Superville at bigstory.ap.org, h/t reader Mike O’Conner:

UNITED NATIONS (AP) — World leaders gathered at the United Nations pledged Tuesday to take in 360,000 refugees next year, President Barack Obama said, roughly doubling the previous year’s allowance in a bid to mitigate the worst refugee crisis since World War II.

The United States said 52 countries taking part in a U.S.-led summit were stepping up to accelerate resettlement and boost financial support for refugees. The White House did not release a full list of participating countries or a breakdown of their pledges, making Obama’s boast of major headway impossible to confirm.

Obama, in an emotional event designed to invoke empathy for the plight of refugees, called it a “crisis of epic proportions” that tested both the international order and the world’s humanity. He drew a parallel to the Holocaust, calling the U.S. move to turn away Jews fleeing Nazi Germany a stain on America’s collective conscience.

“I believe history will judge us harshly if we do not rise to this moment,” Obama said.

The commitments announced Tuesday fell far short of what aid groups say is needed to address the crisis. Some 65 million people around the world have fled their homes because of war or persecution or to seek a better life, including about 21.3 million considered refugees by the U.N. Refugee Agency. Millions of Palestinian refugees are registered with the U.N.

The key driver of the modern crisis has been Syria’s long-running civil war, though large numbers have also fled instability in Iraq and Afghanistan.

In an oblique reference to Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump, who has suggested temporarily banning Muslim immigrants, Obama said buying into the notion that Muslim immigrants pose an inherent risk would reinforce terrorists’ propaganda. He said that would send the message that countries like the U.S. were “somehow opposed to Islam.”

“It is an ugly lie that must be rejected in all our countries,” Obama said.

Last week, the White House announced that the U.S. would resettle 110,000 refugees in the coming year, a 30 percent increase over the 85,000 allowed in this year. Obama called on wealthier nations to step up, adding that “we all have to do more.”

The U.S. said countries taking part were also pledging to increase humanitarian aid by $3 billion. China said it was pledging $300 million, while the United Kingdom said it would resettle 20,000 and provide almost $2 billion in aid — a roughly 10 percent bump. Argentina vowed to resettlement of Syrian refugees but said the exact figures would depend on how much global assistance was provided.

“Your compassion will really help these helpless people,” U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon told world leaders. “If not us, who can do it?”

Private companies were stepping up, too. The White House said more than four dozen U.S. businesses had pledged $650 million, including Facebook, Twitter, MasterCard, Johnson & Johnson and yogurt maker Chobani.

Meeting with CEOs of some of the companies and actor George Clooney and his wife, Amal, before the summit, Obama welcomed the pledges as more than an “extraordinary gesture of compassion.”

“I want to emphasize that from their perspective this isn’t charity. This is part of their overall mission. It makes good business sense,” he said.

___

Associated Press writers Michael Astor and Josh Lederman contributed to this report.

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/462623c56c174b9f985f0994331bc919/white-house-51-companies-pledge-650m-refugee-support

Obama Warned to Defuse Tensions with Russia, by Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS)

Truly sane advice offered to President Obama by people who know what they’re talking about. Let us hope Obama listens. From VIPS at consortiumnews.com:

A group of ex-U.S. intelligence officials is warning President Obama to defuse growing tensions with Russia over Syria by reining in the demonization of President Putin and asserting White House civilian control over the Pentagon.

ALERT MEMORANDUM FOR: The President

FROM: Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity

SUBJECT: PREVENTING STILL WORSE IN SYRIA

We write to alert you, as we did President George W. Bush, six weeks before the attack on Iraq, that the consequences of limiting your circle of advisers to a small, relatively inexperienced coterie with a dubious record for wisdom can prove disastrous.* Our concern this time regards Syria.

We are hoping that your President’s Daily Brief tomorrow will give appropriate attention to Saturday’s warning by Russia’s Foreign Ministry spokesperson Maria Zakharova: “If the US launches a direct aggression against Damascus and the Syrian Army, it would cause a terrible, tectonic shift not only in the country, but in the entire region.”

Speaking on Russian TV, she warned of those whose “logic is ‘why do we need diplomacy’ … when there is power … and methods of resolving a problem by power. We already know this logic; there is nothing new about it. It usually ends with one thing – full-scale war.”

We are also hoping that this is not the first you have heard of this – no doubt officially approved – statement. If on Sundays you rely on the “mainstream” press, you may well have missed it. In the Washington Post, an abridged report of Zakharova’s remarks (nothing about “full-scale war”) was buried in the last paragraph of an 11-paragraph article titled “Hospital in Aleppo is hit again by bombs.” Sunday’s New York Times totally ignored the Foreign Ministry spokesperson’s statements.

In our view, it would be a huge mistake to allow your national security advisers to follow the example of the Post and Times in minimizing the importance of Zakharova’s remarks.

Events over the past several weeks have led Russian officials to distrust Secretary of State John Kerry. Indeed, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, who parses his words carefully, has publicly expressed that distrust. Some Russian officials suspect that Kerry has been playing a double game; others believe that, however much he may strive for progress through diplomacy, he cannot deliver on his commitments because the Pentagon undercuts him every time. We believe that this lack of trust is a challenge that must be overcome and that, at this point, only you can accomplish this.

It should not be attributed to paranoia on the Russians’ part that they suspect the Sept. 17 U.S. and Australian air attacks on Syrian army troops that killed 62 and wounded 100 was no “mistake,” but rather a deliberate attempt to scuttle the partial cease-fire Kerry and Lavrov had agreed on – with your approval and that of President Putin – that took effect just five days earlier.

In public remarks bordering on the insubordinate, senior Pentagon officials showed unusually open skepticism regarding key aspects of the Kerry-Lavrov deal. We can assume that what Lavrov has told his boss in private is close to his uncharacteristically blunt words on Russian NTV on Sept. 26:

“My good friend John Kerry … is under fierce criticism from the US military machine. Despite the fact that, as always, [they] made assurances that the US Commander in Chief, President Barack Obama, supported him in his contacts with Russia (he confirmed that during his meeting with President Vladimir Putin), apparently the military does not really listen to the Commander in Chief.”

To continue reading: Obama Warned to Defuse Tensions with Russia

 

A Silhouette in the Sunset, by Uncola

There are many weird aspects to our president’s life story. From Uncola at theburningplatform.com:

His mother was born in Kansas. His father hailed from Kenya. These star-crossed lovers met in a Russian Language class at the University of Hawaii in 1960. A year later, he was born on August 4, 1961. Even today, his origin of birth remains a topic of national concern. In fact, the subject of his birth certificate was recently raised by the NBC moderator, Lester Holt, during the presidential debate on September 26, 2016. This, in turn, fomented a very heated discussion between the presidential candidates: Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton.

His origin of birth was first challenged during the primaries for the 2008 presidential election by his then opponent, Hillary Clinton. The controversy was later claimed to be settled upon the release of his long-form birth certificate in 2011. However, many today still claim his long-form birth certificate is a fake. Multiple electronic document experts currently contend the document uploaded by the White House is not a scanned version of the original long-form, paper birth certificate. It is instead, a “nine-layered” document with many electronically added overlays proving it to be assembled digitally as opposed to being an exact copy of the original.

Another claim proposed by some is that the British National Archives have indisputable documentation showing “his” father did indeed, have a child born in Kenya in 1961; and the literary agency, Acton & Dystel, once described him in their promotional materials as: “Born in Kenya and raised in Indonesia and Hawaii.” There are still others who claim his selective service card bears a number that proves it was issued in 2008 and there are at least five Social Security numbers associated with his name for people who lived at previous addresses known to have been his. But, at this point, what difference does it make? Besides Snopes says these are all lies and even Wikipedia claims these are just conspiracy theories anyway.

So let’s just stick to what we know. In 1979, he moved to Los Angeles to study at Occidental College under the name of Barry Soetoro. He later transferred to the home of Cloward and Piven: Columbia University in New York. Ironically, in 2008, the Wall Street Journal reported that 400 random Columbia classmates from his class of 1983 have claimed to have never met him. In fact, within the same Wall Street Journal article, the following questions were also raised:

“Why not release his Columbia transcript? Why has his senior essay gone missing?”

Furthermore, the 2008 Libertarian Party vice-presidential candidate, Wayne Allyn Root, in an article written on August 6, 2012, questioned “his” attendance at Columbia University. This is very interesting considering Root was also one of Columbia University’s 700 graduating students in 1983 and was in the Political Science department of which had only 150 graduating students that year. How is it that, out of only 150 students all attending similar classes at the same time, cannot remember such an eloquent and charismatic smooth operator now? Not even one? Moreover, in October 2007, the New York Times ran a piece about “him”. In this article it comments regarding his:

“declined repeated requests to talk about his New York years, release his Columbia transcript or identify even a single fellow student, co-worker, roommate or friend from those years.”

Even at Harvard law school, where he later attended, he has not said much regarding his years there. Only that he attended Harvard and was elected president of the Harvard Law Review. Furthermore, Matthew Franck, a writer for the National Review Online, has stated that a search of the online database of law journals turns up exactly nothing credited to “him” in “any law review anywhere at any time”.

To continue reading: A Silhouette in the Sunset

The Great Divider, from The Burning Platform

http://www.theburningplatform.com/2016/09/25/the-great-divider/

The Day Zero Hedge Goes Dark, by Robert Gore

revelationmovement.com

revelationmovement.com

The mainstream media’s (MSM) coverage of Hillary Clinton’s medical travails offers yet another instance of its blatant bias, and its distortion and outright suppression of the news. The roots of the captive MSM stretch back to the 1940s, which helps explain the waning prospects for dissemination of the truth in 2016.

Veracity is the first casualty of war. During World War II, the government openly co-opted the media, including Hollywood, as propaganda organs. Radio and television stations and networks had to obtain permission from the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to operate. They toed the government’s World War II line. A few newspapers and individual journalists, notably H.L. Mencken and John T. Flynn, challenged it, but Roosevelt pretense of being against US involvement in the war, Pearl Harbor’s vulnerability, the alliance with Joseph Stalin, who was at least as bloodthirsty and tyrannical as Hitler, massive fire bombing of civilian populations in Germany and Japan, and the decision to deploy the atomic bomb should have raised far more questions than they did.

Without missing a beat the government transferred its World War II rationales for “managing” the news and media to the Cold War. The key figure of the era was Allen Dulles, the Director of the CIA from 1953 until 1961. In 1977, Carl Bernstein, of Watergate fame, detailed the CIA’s relationship with the press in the 1950s and 1960s in a lengthy expose for The Rolling Stone. Dulles instituted a partnership, Operation Mockingbird, between the agency and the media. The agency would supply journalists with information and access to situations that would have been otherwise inaccessible in exchange for on-the-ground intelligence and the occasional performance of agency requests. Implicit in the arrangement: journalists would hew to the CIA line.

A veritable who’s who of the media elite embraced the arrangement. Per Bernstein: “By far the most valuable of these associations, according to CIA officials, have been with the New York Times, CBS and Time Inc.” No questions were asked in the bland reports that the duly elected leaders of Iran and Guatemala had been deposed, CIA-orchestrated operations. Nor were they asked in the early days of Vietnam, as the CIA set up shop in Saigon and the press worried about falling dominoes in Southeast Asia.

Some of the agency’s screw-ups were too big to whitewash. After the Bay of Pigs fiasco, President Kennedy asked Dulles for his resignation. Dulles’ subsequent membership on the Warren Commission, where he stage-managed the investigation to its preordained conclusion, raised eyebrows. However, the raised-eyebrow set were disparaged as “conspiracy theorists,” a term invented by the CIA to discredit anyone questioning the official version of anything.

The Vietnam War was too extensive and lengthy to hide. As the years rolled on and the body count mounted, questions were asked. Journalists had remarkable latitude to roam, often accompanying military units to battle zones. They saw fighting first-hand and talked directly to the fighters. Their stories were a sharp contrast to the military’s bland briefings in Saigon. That Vietnam was, at best, a hopeless quagmire and probably a lost cause was a bottom-up realization; the soldiers and the in-the-field press covering them knew it long before the brass and its house-broken reporters. Publication of The Pentagon Papers in 1971 marked the media’s finest hour in Vietnam. Its revelations of duplicity reinforced America’s mood; by then all it wanted from Vietnam was a graceful exit.

After a ten-year hiatus dating from the end of the Cold War in 1991, the US establishment acquired a new enemy. Despite the pyrotechnics of 9/11, the terrorists presented orders of magnitude less of a threat than the Axis powers in World War II or the Soviet Union during the Cold War. However, a war on a tactic—terrorism—can be waged anywhere and against anybody the government chooses. It can and apparently will go on forever; victory in such a conflict being impossible to define, much less achieve. All this was obvious before the US ventured into Afghanistan and Iraq, but few in the media questioned the conceptual basis of those forays.

Judging by restrictions on civil liberties embedded in the Patriot Act, subsequent legislation, and judicial interpretations, rag-tag terrorists whose main weapons are stolen artillery and firearms, improvised explosive devices, and blowing themselves up pose a greater threat than the US’s World War II and Cold War foes. A measure of how captive the MSM has become: it labeled Edward Snowden a traitor for exposing the government’s Orwellian surveillance in the name of “fighting terrorism.” Snowden should have been hailed. Such surveillance makes a free press impossible; if it cannot shield its secrets from the government it cannot operate.

For the press and freedom of press to mean anything, the media must be outside the government, looking in. Currently, that characterization only applies to the independent segments of the media, mostly the Internet, that takes a reflexively adversarial stance towards the powers that be, including the MSM. Call it the alternative media. What it lacks in the docile MSM’s cherished “access” it more than makes up for in pugnacity.

The Drudge Report made a name for itself publicizing Bill Clinton scandals the MSM ignored. It is the most powerful and widely viewed alternative site. Zero Hedge, like the Drudge Report, aggregates news, analysis, and commentary from a variety of sources, but it also features its own analyses and comments (Zero Hedges has reposted Straight Line Logic articles). Financially oriented, Zero Hedge made its bones during the last crisis, which it saw coming well before it arrived. Its commentary and stories since on the government and Federal Reserve’s responses—the bailouts, stimulus, and quantitative easing—have been scathing.

These two sites are the vanguard of the alternative media: hundreds, perhaps thousands, of sites worldwide that probe virtually every idiocy and prevarication emanating not just from governments and central banks, but large corporations, academia, militaries, intelligence services, and the MSM itself. The alternative media has little capacity to generate original news coverage (although leaks, hacking, and videos have been invaluable), but publicly available material is virtually inexhaustible. It has become a giant thorn in the side of what it variously calls the establishment, the powers that be, the deep state, the Empire, globalists, or the new world order. Although not all in the alternative media support Donald Trump, they are united in their contempt for Hillary Clinton. Their relentless skepticism, disclosures, and editorializing have been bastions for the Trump campaign. It’s probably not an overstatement to say that campaign wouldn’t be where it is without the alternative media.

The established order recognizes the threat. Hillary Clinton’s recent speeches condemning the alt-right and the “basket of deplorables,” and President Obama’s comments Monday about unspecified blogs “churning out a lot of misinformation” confirm the apprehension. The alt-right is part of the alternative media and takes a politically incorrect perspective on the mainstream’s racial, ethnic, sexual, and gender catechism. As such, it makes the easiest target, however, it is not the establishment’s real target. Obama gave up the game with the word “misinformation.” He’s not worried about misinformation—if he were Obamacare never would have become law—he’s worried about correct information, also known as the truth.

The alternative press shatters the cozy arrangement midwifed by Allen Dulles’ between the government and the MSM. The biggest threat to powers that be is always the truth. Just as they will steal everything you’ve got (see “You Will Be Poor”), they will suppress the truth. The alternative media has gone from success to success, but if Trump is elected, it will probably mark an apotheosis. The establishment will neither forgive nor forget, and sooner or later the alternative media will train its sights on Trump himself. It’s hard to believe that he won’t give it reason to do so—power does corrupt—especially for that segment of the alternative media with a more libertarian perspective.

Alternative media hubris is an unaffordable luxury. The counterattack is coming—take Hillary and Barack’s word for it—and the alternative media is extraordinarily vulnerable. It can be silenced by someone pulling the plug on the Internet or parts thereof. Like a “Funds Inaccessible” message on our bank accounts, a “Site Not Available” message may well greet us one morning when we try to pull up Zero Hedge . The rationale could be “deplorable” racism, sexism, homophobia, xenophobia, or Islamophobia, or peddling what has been officially deemed “misinformation,” but make no mistake, the truth that emerges from the alternative media poses a grave threat to those who would rule us, and they know it.

WHAT IF THE FOUNTAIN OF YOUTH

FELL INTO THE WRONG HANDS?

PRIME DECEIT

ROBERT GORE’S NEW NOVEL WILL BE

AVAILABLE ON AMAZON AND KINDLE

OCTOBER 2016!

PRIME DECEIT IS PRIME POLITICAL SATIRE. MORE

DETAILS, PRE-ORDERING INFORMATION, AND A SPECIAL OFFER

FOR SLL READERS, COMING SOON!

When Putin Bailed Out Obama, by Ray McGovern

President Obama has demonstrated remarkable ingratitude towards Vladimir Putin. From Ray McGovern at consortiumnews.com:

Three years ago, when a reluctant President Barack Obama was about to launch an attack on Syria, supposedly in retaliation for President Bashar al-Assad crossing a “red line” against using chemical weapons, Obama smelled a rat – or rather he sensed a mousetrap.

Advised by some of his intelligence advisers that the evidence blaming the Syrian government for the lethal sarin attack was weak, Obama disappointed many of Washington’s neocons and liberal war hawks, including those in his own administration, by deferring action. He tossed the issue to Congress, thus guaranteeing a delay.

Precisely at that key juncture, Russian President Vladimir Putin took the pressure off Obama by persuading the Syrian government to destroy its chemical weapons, which Assad did – while still denying any role in the attack at Ghouta, just outside Damascus, on Aug. 21, 2013.

Washington’s hardliners were left aching for their lost opportunity to attack Syria by citing the Ghouta attack as a casus belli. But the evidence suggested, instead, a well-orchestrated Syrian rebel false-flag operation aimed at fabricating a pretext for direct U.S. intervention in the war on Syria.

With Putin’s assistance in getting Assad to surrender the chemical weapons, Obama was able to extricate himself from the corner that he had rather clumsily painted himself into with his earlier bravado talk about a “red line.”

But Washington’s irate neocons and many of their liberal-interventionist chums felt cheated out of their almost-war. After all, Syria had been on the neocon “regime change” list as long as Iraq and was supposed to follow the 2003 Iraq invasion if that neocon-driven adventure had not turned out so disastrously.

Still, the neocons would make Putin pay for his interference six months later by promoting an anti-Russian putsch in Ukraine, followed by U.S. and European Union sanctions to punish Russia for its “aggression.” [See Consortiumnews.com’s “What Neocons Want from Ukraine Crisis.“]

According to Jeffrey Goldberg who conducted a series of interviews with Obama for a lengthy article in The Atlantic, the President boasted about his decision on Aug. 30, 2013, to resist pressure for military action from many of his advisers and instead step outside what he called “the Washington playbook.”

Goldberg described the day as Obama’s “liberation day.” For Secretary of State John Kerry, however, Aug. 30 ended in disappointment after earlier that day he had shaken the rafters at the State Department bellowing for a U.S. attack on Syria.

Goldberg explained that having already caved in under hardline pressure to double down on sending more troops to Afghanistan for a feckless “counterinsurgency” operation in 2009, Obama was not in the mood for “seeking new dragons to slay” merely to preserve his “credibility.”

According to Goldberg, within the White House, Obama would argue that “dropping bombs on someone to prove that you’re willing to drop bombs on someone is just about the worst reason to use force.”

Nevertheless, Washington’s neocons and liberal hawks – along with the Saudis, Israelis and French – argued strenuously that Obama was obliged to “retaliate” for Syria’s alleged violation of the “red line” he had set a year earlier against Syria’s using – or merely moving – chemical weapons.

To continue reading: When Putin Bailed Out Obama

Image

Obamaspeak, from The Burning Platform

Meet the General Who Tried to Pressure Obama Into World War 3 with Russia, by Michael Krieger

It may be no coincidence the similarity in names between Breedlove and Strangelove. From Michael Krieger at libertyblitzkrieg.com:

Meet retired U.S. Air Force General Philip Breedlove. A man who back in 2014 relentlessly tried to get Obama to start what would have been World War 3 with Russia.

The Intercept reports:

Retired U.S. Air Force Gen. Philip Breedlove, until recently the supreme commander of NATO forces in Europe, plotted in private to overcome President Barack Obama’s reluctance to escalate military tensions with Russia over the war in Ukraine in 2014, according to apparently hacked emails from Breedlove’s Gmail account that were posted on a new website called DC Leaks.

Obama defied political pressure from hawks in Congress and the military to provide lethal assistance to the Ukrainian government, fearing that doing so would increase the bloodshed and provide Russian President Vladimir Putin with the justification for deeper incursions into the country.

But the leaked emails provide an even more dramatic picture of the intense back-channel lobbying for the Obama administration to begin a proxy war with Russia in Ukraine.

In a series of messages in 2014, Breedlove sought meetings with former Secretary of State Colin Powell, asking for advice on how to pressure the Obama administration to take a more aggressive posture towards Russia.

“Given Obama’s instruction to you not to start a war, this may be a tough sell,” Ullman replied a few months later, in another string of emails about Breedlove’s effort to “leverage, cajole, convince or coerce the US to react” to Russia.

Breedlove did not respond to a request for comment. He stepped down from his NATO leadership position in May and retired from service on Friday, July 1. Breedlove was a four star Air Force general and served as the 17th Supreme Allied Commander of NATO forces in Europe starting on May 10, 2013.

In the European press, Breedlove has been portrayed as a hawkish figure known for leaning on allied nations to ditch diplomacy and to adopt a more confrontational role again Russian-backed separatists in Ukraine. Breedlove, testifying before Congress earlier in February of this year, called Russia “a long-term existential threat to the United States and to our European allies.”

Der Spiegel reported that Breedlove “stunned” German leaders with a surprise announcement in 2015 by claiming that pro-Russian separatists had “upped the ante” in eastern Ukraine with “well over a thousand combat vehicles, Russian combat forces, some of the most sophisticated air defense, battalions of artillery” sent to Donbass, a center of the conflict.

Breedlove’s numbers were “significantly higher” than the figures known to NATO intelligence agencies, and seemed exaggerated to German officials. The announcement appeared to be a provocation designed to disrupt mediation efforts led by Chancellor Angela Merkel.

In previous instances, German officials believed Breedlove overestimated Russian forces along the border with Ukraine by as much as 20,000 troops, and found that the general had falsely claimed that several Russian military assets near the Ukrainian border were part of a special build-up in preparation for a large-scale invasion of the country. In fact, much of the Russian military equipment identified by Breedlove, the Germans said, had been stored there well before the revolution in Ukraine.

To continue reading: Meet the General Who Tried to Pressure Obama Into World War 3 with Russia

Nigel Farage Batters Obama: “He Came To Britain And Behaved Disgracefully” by Tyler Durden

How come only a British political figure will say the obvious: President Obama is an ass? In this country, personal criticism of our dear leader is forbidden, probably because nobody wants to fend off accusations of racism. Obama has been a jerk since he first appeared on the public scene, and Nigel Farage calls him on a recent offense. From Tyler Durden at zerohedge.com:

Back in April President Obama took a trip over to the UK in order to lecture another country on how to voteObama of course was staunchly in the Remain camp. Obama even penned an op-ed titled: “As your friend, let me say that the EU makes Britain even greater.”

Of course, we all know the historic outcome of the Brexit vote, and we have even asked if it was Barack Obama who actually was the deciding factor:

UKIP leader Nigel Farage has never been shy of course, but lately has been making sure to remember all of those who tried to downplay or influence the vote. For example, in his first appearance in the European Parliament since the Brexit vote, Farage took the time to make sure the audience knew he hadn’t forgotten that everyone laughed when Farage said that he was going to lead a campaign to get Britain to leave the EU, saying “You’re not laughing now are you.”

Farage hadn’t forgotten Obama’s attempt to influence the vote either. In a recent interview with Fox News, Farage was asked what can be done about Putin if the UK isn’t in the EU, to which Farage raged that Obama had behaved disgracefully when compared to Putin.

“Well ultimately let me say this, Vladimir Putin behaved in a more statesmanlike manner than President Obama did in this referendum campaign. Obama came to Britain and I think behaved disgracefully, telling us we’d be at the back of the queue. Treating us, America’s strongest, oldest ally, in this extraordinary way. Vladimir Putin maintained his silence throughout the whole campaign.”

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-06-28/nigel-farage-slams-obama-he-came-britain-and-behaved-disgracefully