Future Crimes


horiz grey line
tgplogo12313

By JOHN STEPPLING

“Precrime Analytical Wing: Contains the precognitives and the machinery needed to hear and analyze their predictions of future crimes.”
    —Philip K. Dick, Minority Report

“I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen’s Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to “order” than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice…”
    —Martin Luther King

“The intellectuals are the dominant group’s ‘deputies,’ exercising the subaltern functions of social hegemony and political government”.
    —Gramsci

There was a jaw dropping but not unexpected article at The Guardian this week. It was actually part of a series of pieces at that paper that have sought to manufacture a legacy for Obama, the outgoing president, since his actual legacy is one of imperialist foreign policy, CIA support of jihadists, right wing coups, and most acutely, perhaps, a massive subverting of free speech and civil liberties. What Robert Parry has called a ‘war on dissent’. The Guardian piece took the form of asking novelists, public intellectuals {sic} and TV hacks what they perceived to be Obama’s legacy — and even the use of that word, *legacy* is a loaded indicator of the direction this piece was headed. What struck me most was not the predictable support for Obama policy (more on that later) but the utter banality of the writing. There were writers in this group who I have admired (Richard Ford for one, Marilynne Robinson, as well) but the sentiments were so stupefyingly superficial, so fatuous and fawning that it was hard not to see this as a kind of mini referendum on the state of Western culture.

Joyce Carol Oates (for whom ten words is usually better than the right word) described Obama as…“Brilliant and understated, urbane, witty, compassionate, composed..”. Siri Hutsvedt (who honestly I had to look up…finding her most notable achievement was being married to Paul Auster) wrote…“For eight years, we have been represented by an elegant, well-spoken, funny, highly educated, moderate, morally upright, preternaturally calm black man”. Richard Ford wrote…“This cold morning, when I think about Obama, immersed in what must be a decidedly mixed brew of emotions – mixed about his deeds, mixed about his effects on the US, decidedly mixed about our future – I’m confident he is thinking, right to his last minute in the office, as the president, and not much about, or for, himself. That’s what I expected when I voted for him – that he’d be a responsible public servant who’d try to look out for the entire country.” I know, I know, but that’s what he wrote. Look it up if you don’t believe me. Perhaps this is what a career of University teaching does to one. Edmund White called him one of our great presidents (love the use of *our*).

Jane Smiley, who at the least mentioned TPP and drones, but ended with…“As a national leader, he has engendered more chaos, but it is necessary chaos – a loud and meaningful return to the question of what constitutes the real America.” A necessary chaos? The fuck does that mean? I ask that sincerely, sort of. By the time I reached the end of this saccharine mind numbing bathos I thought back to the 1968 Democratic Convention and to Esquire Magazine, in its golden era, who sent William Burroughs, Jean Genet, Terry Southern and John Sack to cover the convention. I thought back to Robert Bly and his organizing of Writers against the Vietnam war. The readings he gave with Galway Kinnell and Ginsburg, and a dozen others. And to the way Bly spoke of art and the role of art in a society. In an interview with Michael Ventura, around the time of the Iraq invasion…

Bly: I don’t think we believe that a Great Mother is lying to us. It’s a father who’s lying to us. Thee whole system, in a way, is a father system.
Ventura: It’s a patriarchy, so it’s a father who’s lying.
Bly: Exactly. And we eventually get the sense that our own
father is lying to us. { } Whenever you have a culture completely run by gross
capitalism, all of the gods are driven away. Well, then what?
What does that mean when those gods are not present?

Later Bly says…

“When I talk about the world being mad, I tell people,
“You won’t believe how bad television is going to be in ten years.
You’re going to literally have to protect your children from it.”
And we’re not going to be able to change that. The only thing
we can do is recognize that it’s mad, and reach inside ourselves
and bring out our own genuine madness in the form of art,
and then teach our children to do the same.”

In 68, a corporate owned magazine, and hardly a socialist magazine, thought it reasonable to ask Genet or Burroughs to discuss a political convention. I mean even Norman Mailer wrote intelligently on Kennedy for Esquire, and Mailer isn’t exactly Gramsci. My point is, or I hope my first point, is that it is not always crucial to demand ideological analysis. For art’s radical nature is outside ideology. Just speaking from a radical perspective, an anti bourgeois perspective, can be enough. But in 1968 the U.S. still had artists. What artist could you invite today? What public intellectual? The Guardian picked Sarah Churchwell (who again, I’d never heard of) who wrote…

“The Obamas changed the rules for what it means to inhabit the White House, and not only because they were the first black family to do so. They were also the first modern family to do so, to be informal yet classy, upright yet kind, and, most important, themselves.”

That’s it then, just be yourself. But the lesson here, if there is one, is that the radical tradition in American life has been rendered invisible. Just as the history of labor and unions and strikes has been erased. There are plenty of great artists out there, actually. Tons of intellectuals, but they aren’t invited by corporate media. Was anyone from Black Agenda Report asked to comment? Or from, well, CounterPunch? Was Harry Belafonte asked? The manufacturing of an image of a culture, rather than an actual culture, is what organs of disinformation such as The Guardian are in the business of doing. And this is also what Hollywood does, of course. Look at the stuff that gets on in the flagship theatres of the U.S. What is the season at Lincoln Center? Does it matter? No, it really doesn’t. And running across all of this discussion is the question of class. In fact, that may be the most important aspect in all of this. The working class voice is erased. In total. And this is hugely significant. Even fifty years ago the stages of American theatres were filled by work from playwrights who did not have MFAs. Novels were written by criminals and outsiders. This is no less true, really, in the U.K. From Brendan Behan to Martin Amis is the road travelled. Now of course one can cite exceptions to this, I think anyway. There are always celebrity outsiders, branded renegades. Usually this takes the form of a confessional. My time on oxycodone while writing Sitcoms. I was a teenage prostitute and was addicted to anti depressants, but then I found a higher power. But god forbid you express condemnation of the bourgeoisie. For that is the greatest of all crimes.

When I worked in Hollywood, I felt the class estrangement acutely. But I did get work and had some modest success. And I remember when a major cable producer of the era asked me, during a pitch meeting, for the names of writers I thought would be good to employ for an anthology series they wanted to put together. I said, well, Iceberg Slim (Robert Beck) and John Rechy. A silence fell on the room. I was very very naive. Hollywood today seems infested with lawyers, former political interns, and business school graduates. Most from Ivy league schools. And the world that is manufactured is one that reflects their class. And the effect this has had is to alienate the younger artists who do not come from affluent backgrounds. It has also normalized a vision of the world that belongs to perhaps ten per cent of the population. The rest are strangers in their own land. Strangers to the official sanctioned culture. And in that sense, Hollywood has sort of merged with Madison Avenue.

The Obamas basking in liberal adoration—which never stops.

The class divide is being starkly revealed this last few months. And it has also served to put in stark relief the real impetus of U.S. foreign policy (and to domestic policy, too, only not as drastically). After WW2 and the formation of the CIA, the shaping of a political intention was being finalized. This came from George Kennan and the Dulles Brothers. And Henry Kissinger was the premier exemplar of this thinking. Kissinger, who supported the Shah and his death squads in Iran, and chaired the Presidential Commission on Central America in the 1980s, (employing Ollie North) and which unleashed an unimaginable terror on that region, and who orchestrated the Pinochet coup in Chile to protect ITT and, as a sidebar, to teach a lesson to any government not readily obedient. This has been the seamless and never changing foreign policy of the U.S. for seventy some years. Punish the disobedient (meaning anything smacking of socialism or any nation even the tiniest bit resistant to Western business) and to continue toward global hegemony, and at the same time perpetuating conflicts which make both defense contractors and giant service providers such as Halliburton a lot of money.

The U.S. has cultivated compliant nations (Australia, the U.K. most notably) to enforce its policy (think East Timor, Iraq and Libya et al) and now owns a compliant organization with international standing: NATO. And NATO serves as a legitimizing international (sic) institution of pacification.

John Pilger writes…

“The other day, an Indonesian friend took me to his primary school where, in October 1965, his teacher was beaten to death, suspected of being a communist…
The murder was typical of the slaughter of more than a million people: teachers, students, civil servants, peasants. Described by the CIA as “one of the worst mass murders of the 20th century”, it brought to power the dictator Suharto, the west’s man. Within a year of the bloodbath, Indonesia’s economy was redesigned in America, giving western capital access to vast mineral wealth, markets and cheap labour. “

Stephan Gowans writes…

“The United States had waged a long war against Syria from the very moment the country’s fiercely independent Arab nationalist movement came to power in 1963. Assad and his father Hafez al-Assad were committed to that movement. Washington sought to purge Arab nationalist influence from the Syrian state and the Arab world more broadly. It was a threat to Washington’s agenda of establishing global primacy and promoting business-friendly investment climates for US banks, investors and corporations throughout the world.”

[dropcap]T[/dropcap]he rise of the neocons, which rather officially began with Project for a New American Century (just prior to Bush Jr’s presidency) was really just an extension of that original plan for global domination. At that time this was articulated by a seething nearly hysterical hatred of the Soviet Union. And the structural aspect of this remains in place with today’s rabid and massive propaganda campaign directed at Putin. And indeed even on the left one hears the echoes of a Russophobic sensibility. It is as if these faux leftists can not allow a critique of U.S. imperialism (in Syria for example) without off handedly smearing Russia, too. One need only look at who is surrounding whom with military bases. And the same holds true, with slightly less hysteria, for China.

In 2012 Ed Herman, speaking in a radio interview, said

“…humanitarian intervention {has} been used strictly for the interests of the United States and other Western powers and Israel. Strictly. So there’s no intervention in Saudi Arabia or Israel or Yemen or Bahrain. There was none in Egypt…And there was Egypt, here you had a miserable dictator for decades, and then you had an uprising where a lot of people were being beaten and killed in the streets, and you never had Mrs. Clinton ever asking for any application of humanitarian intervention. Not once. Never. They’re getting away with the most unbelievable double standard imaginable.”

This is, none of it, new. And yet, despite the obvious record of Obama in furthering exactly this world vision, the liberal organs of *real* news continue to paint their revisionist narratives of American heroism and goodness. And it is breathtaking in a way to read this new class of quisling artist, the court eunuchs for the Democratic Party establishment. And Obama’s apparent anger and petulance belies, certainly, descriptions such as ‘preternaturally calm’, and ‘dignified’. But there is a thread of liberal guilt running through this as well. Obama’s race (and his perfect wife and kids — and one longs for Ron Reagan Jr or to go back to James Madison’s son John, and shit, even the Bush girls might be a relief from these Stepford children.) is the psychological glue for a visibly excessive adoration. And this is a white liberal class that is haunted, I suspect, in their heart of hearts, by the knowledge of their own privilege and that that privilege has resulted in oceans of blood, and the knowledge, if they were ever to question themselves, that they would sell out anyone to retain that privilege. They love Obama and Obama is black, therefore…etc.

As Ajamu Baraka noted

“In the face of the Neo-McCarthyism represented by this legislation and the many other repressive moves of the Obama administration to curtail speech and control information — from the increased surveillance of the public to the use of the espionage act to prosecute journalists and whistleblowers — one would reasonably assume that forces on the left would vigorously oppose the normalization of authoritarianism, especially in this period of heightened concerns about neo-fascism.
Unfortunately, the petit-bourgeois “latte left” along with their liberal allies have been in full collaboration with the state for the past eight years, with the predictable result that no such alarm was issued, nor has any critique or even debate been forthcoming.”

[dropcap]T[/dropcap]he openly Imperialist U.S. state has tortured, illegally kidnapped, and simply murdered both leaders of sovereign states as well as countless innocent victims. That Samantha Power’s motorcade in rushing through a village in Cameroon happened to run over a ten year old boy, and didn’t stop — this barely made the evening news at all (but hey, they did send the family fifteen hundred dollars by way of an apology). They have acted covertly to destabilize governments and have manufactured enemies at a rate that is staggering to contemplate. Obama’s tight relationship with the most odious autocratic and murderous country on earth, Saudi Arabia, speaks to the cynicism of the political elite.

Obamas-CC-Bing

And yet, the artistic communities by and large continue to focus on identity issues (once they have attended to their career moves and spoken with their agents), most of which affect their own class. The dire suffering of the poor makes good voyeuristic source material, but the segregation of classes is enforced zealously. Token exceptions are simply that.

How is it possible to become so alarmed by Trump, while supporting Democrats? Those millions on the street protesting the looming invasion of Iraq must have noticed that every single Democrat in government voted FOR the invasion (save for the honorable Barbara Lee). And yet here they all are wringing their hands in dismay that Hillary lost. Here they are constantly repeating the litanies of Trump evil and never noticing the crimes of earlier Democratic presidents and administrations. So, yes Trump’s appointments are awful. But I refuse to even dig into that until a discussion of Obama’s appointments are dissected. First came Rahm Emanuel, former member of the IDF, all around thug and bully and lover of never ending war to help expand Israeli power. Penny Pritzker, heiress and elitist and friend to the 1%, or Robert Rubin or Tim Geithner (!!!) or Tom Daschle, the senator from Citibank. I’m just scratching the surface. Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton. The point is that I am coming to feel that almost any focus on Trump feels misplaced. Certainly now it does since he isn’t even president yet. The deconstruction of liberal Obama is far from complete and the propaganda apparatus is working overtime to rewrite not just recent history, but the present. And the anti Russian propaganda is so absurd, so transparent, that this feels far more important than the predictable stupidity of Trump. I mean Obama is massing troops near the Russian border. Obama is ramping up the building of purpose built naval bases near China. Obama is still looking to prosecute Chelsea Manning and every other whistleblower. And he is still signing draconian legislation to curb free speech and institutionalize legitimacy for the new McCarthyism. Talking about Trump is a form of forgetting. I can’t do it. And if there is an easier target for parody or even non parodic narrative than Donald Trump, I haven’t met them. And easy is never an act of rigorous self examination.

Thomas Bates writes, discussing Gramsci…

“Gramsci retained a skepticism towards these alienated fils de bourgeois, a
skepticism which was not, however, mere prejudice, but was an historical
judgment informed by the experience of the Italian labor movement. How was one to explain the passing of entire groups of left-wing intellectuals into the enemy camp? More precisely, how was one to explain the phenomena of socialists entering into bourgeois governments and of revolutionary syndicalists entering into the nationalist and then the Fascist movement? Gramsci viewed these puzzling events as the continuation on a mass scale of the ‘trasformismo’ of the nineteenth century. The “generation gap” within the ruling class had resulted
in a large influx of bourgeois youth into the popular movements, especially
during the turbulent decade of the 1890’s. But in the war-induced crisis
of the Italian State in the early twentieth century, these prodigal children
returned to the fold…”

And Gramsci adds..

“The bourgeoisie fails to educate its youth (struggle of generations). The youth allow themselves to be culturally attracted by the workers, and right away they … try to take control of them (in their “unconscious” desire to impose the hegemony of their own class on the people), but during historical crises they return to the fold.”

White affluent self identifying liberals believe they are the decision makers. That is their destiny. They believe that. One must build a new culture. Not endlessly ratify a decrepit and atrophying one. One must stop perceiving *liberals* as being on the side of change. For they are not. Guy Debord began his situationist masterpiece (1967) by quoting Feuerbach, Preface to the second edition of The Essence of Christianity:

“But certainly for the present age, which prefers the sign to the thing signified, the copy to the original, representation to reality, the appearance to the essence… illusion only is sacred, truth profane. Nay, sacredness is held to be enhanced in proportion as truth decreases and illusion increases, so that the highest degree of illusion comes to be the highest degree of sacredness. “

NOTE: ALL IMAGE CAPTIONS, PULL QUOTES AND COMMENTARY BY THE EDITORS, NOT THE AUTHORS • PLEASE COMMENT AND DEBATE DIRECTLY ON OUR FACEBOOK GROUP CLICK HERE

 John Steppling is an original founding member of the Padua Hills Playwrights Festival, a two-time NEA recipient, Rockefeller Fellow in theatre, and PEN-West winner for playwriting. Plays produced in LA, NYC, SF, Louisville, and at universities across the US, as well in Warsaw, Lodz, Paris, London and Krakow. Taught screenwriting and curated the cinematheque for five years at the Polish National Film School in Lodz, Poland. A collection of plays, Sea of Cortez & Other Plays was published in 1999, and his book on aesthetics, Aesthetic Resistance and Dis-Interest was published this year by Mimesis International. 

Note to Commenters
Due to severe hacking attacks in the recent past that brought our site down for up to 11 days with considerable loss of circulation, we exercise extreme caution in the comments we publish, as the comment box has been one of the main arteries to inject malicious code. Because of that comments may not appear immediately, but rest assured that if you are a legitimate commenter your opinion will be published within 24 hours. If your comment fails to appear, and you wish to reach us directly, send us a mail at: editor@greanvillepost.com

We apologize for this inconvenience. 

horiz-long grey

uza2-zombienationWhat will it take to bring America to live according to its own propaganda?

black-horizontal

black-horizontal

=SUBSCRIBE TODAY! NOTHING TO LOSE, EVERYTHING TO GAIN.=
free • safe • invaluable
Please see our red registration box at the bottom of this page

If you appreciate our articles, do the right thing and let us know by subscribing. It’s free and it implies no obligation to you—ever. We just want to have a way to reach our most loyal readers on important occasions when their input is necessary. In return you get our email newsletter compiling the best of The Greanville Post several times a week.

horiz-black-wide
REMEMBER: ALL CAPTIONS AND PULL-QUOTES BY THE EDITORS, NOT THE AUTHORS.

black-horizontal

THE GREANVILLE POST

For media inquiries contact us at greanville@gmail.com



The Presstitute Beat: Elizabeth Palmer’s Russian Gyrations

pale blue horiztgp-eye-on-media
By the constant administration of lies, the media puppeteers manufacture wars, protect the super-wealthy,
and destroy democracy.

PATRICE GREANVILLE

CBS correspondent Elizabeth Palmer reported truthfully on the Crimean referendum in 2014, but in 2017 she’s selling nothing but lies. What made her repudiate her own prior eyewitness report? Take a wild guess.

In a new report, published Jan. 9, 2017, in the midst of the greatest baseless anti-Russian hysteria in decades, Palmer is conveniently oblivious to her own facts. When the NATO commanders talk about the advisability of “a little more deterrence” against a Russia aggression that no one has ever documented, she fails to ask the good officer, “Why?” Playing dumb, she simply lets the chance slip to ask the central question: Deterrence against what? Except for some cautionary mobilizations inside Russia provoked by America’s own grotesque and foolhardy provocations massing soldiers and equipment on her borders, and with Russia now encircled by Washington vassal states, Russia has done simply nothing to warrant talk about “aggression”, “invasions”, “takeovers”, and similar shopworn anti-communist, russophobic claptrap. Since the corporate press is so sanctimoniously obsessed about the danger to the health of the nation and American democracy represented by “Fake News”, isn’t it time they should at least have the decency to start the hunt by looking at themselves in the mirror?

—P.G

See below:

THIS WAS ELIZABETH PALMER THEN
Report #1: Filed by CBS in March, 2014. Not great, but at least mostly truthful.

Report #2 A similarly truthful report, but much better, filed about the same time (March-April 2014) by PressTV:

Report #3 Aired by CBS on Jan. 9, 2017.  A shameless compilation of innuendo and lies.

Below, the CBS transcript of the clip above. Our commentary is in the Comment panel; bolded in red is what we regard as deceitful, misleading or an outright lie buried in the text.

For 1st time since Cold War, U.S. tanks roll into Russia’s backyard

Last Updated Jan 9, 2017 7:20 AM EST

BREMERHAVEN, Germany — Since the end of the Cold War, the U.S. has been drawing down its military presence in Europe. But at the main docks in Bremerhaven, in northern Germany, that’s no longer the case. In fact, CBS News correspondent Elizabeth Palmer reports, quite the reverse is the order of the day.

All the massive hardware of a U.S. combat brigade arrived in Germany over the weekend, and started rolling east toward Poland, where 4,000 American soldiers will be waiting for it.

It is the first build-up of American troops and weapons in Europe in almost 30 years, and as Palmer reports, the impressive display of military might is meant, in large part, to reassure America’s nervous allies in Europe that the U.S. military will be there, standing with them, against any Russian aggression.

COMMENT: The old trope about “nervous allies needing reassurance” by Uncle Sam’s military muscle is one of the oldest self-serving and next to impossible to test statements used by US propagandists. This type of statement is usually introduced without attribution, but should the reporter or media be questioned, they can always say it is the opinion of any of numerous figures the CIA keep on tap for such “corroborations”. It could be some ranking military officer, cultural figure, political analyst or some paid politician. The trope reinforces in the American mind the idea that the US, as Obama never tires of saying, is “the indispensable nation”, and that “the world needs our leadership,” which is as ludicrous a declaration as you can find, but which endless unchallenged repetition has sanitized and made credible over time.

Aggression, and land grabs, like the 2014 invasion of Crimea, when Russian troops landed in what had been Ukraine and seized the ground for the Kremlin.

COMMENT: This is the Big Lulu here, as shown by the videos we attach. In 2o14 Palmer reported that 97% of the Crimean population had voted to rejoin the Russian Federation; in 2017 she is suddenly talking about “land grabs,” and “the invasion of Crimea.” What do you call this kind of person? And what about her bosses, the producers behind such scams? The criminal media barons behind it all? Common streetwalkers have a lot more honor than these people, and they are not nearly as dangerous. 

America’s response, manifested with the new deployment, has been to increase both its own force in Europe, and its support of NATO.

However, incoming U.S. President Donald Trump has suggested NATO is obsolete, and said he wants to restore good relations with Russia.

Palmer asked Major General Timothy McGuire how quickly the new president could, as a gesture of good will towards Russia, turn the whole deployment to eastern Europe around and pull them out.

“I’m not going to speculate on what the incoming president may or may not do, but I will tell you this is in the interests of the United States Army, to build readiness,” McGuire replied.

The new commander-in-chief could reverse it all, of course, but Palmer says that would take months, or even years.

Meanwhile, Russian President Vladimir Putin has already indicated that he views the American build-up as pointless.

It’s “stupid and unrealistic,” he said, to think that Russia would attack anyone. But the American military and its NATO allies believe a little extra deterrence won’t hurt.

Once all the troops and equipment of the combat brigade reach their final destinations, at various places in eastern Europe, they will start a series of big multinational exercises with other NATO armies.

The Kremlin said Monday that discussions would begin with Mr. Trump’s administration after his inauguration to determine a time for his first meeting with Putin.

The seat of Russian power also said it was looking forward to putting the current period of tension behind it, suggesting Mr. Trump would usher in “more sober experts.”

—END—

NOTE: ALL IMAGE CAPTIONS, PULL QUOTES AND COMMENTARY BY THE EDITORS, NOT THE AUTHORS

BAR-msm-media-lies

PLEASE COMMENT AND DEBATE DIRECTLY ON OUR FACEBOOK GROUP INSTALLATION

ABOUT THE AUTHOR
    Patrice Greanville is this website's editor in chief.

Note to Commenters
Due to severe hacking attacks in the recent past that brought our site down for up to 11 days with considerable loss of circulation, we exercise extreme caution in the comments we publish, as the comment box has been one of the main arteries to inject malicious code. Because of that comments may not appear immediately, but rest assured that if you are a legitimate commenter your opinion will be published within 24 hours. If your comment fails to appear, and you wish to reach us directly, send us a mail at: editor@greanvillepost.com

We apologize for this inconvenience. 

horiz-long grey
=SUBSCRIBE TODAY! NOTHING TO LOSE, EVERYTHING TO GAIN.=
free • safe • invaluable

If you appreciate our articles, do the right thing and let us know by subscribing. It’s free and it implies no obligation to you—ever. We just want to have a way to reach our most loyal readers on important occasions when their input is necessary.  In return you get our email newsletter compiling the best of The Greanville Post several times a week.  

[email-subscribers namefield=”YES” desc=”” group=”Public”]

bandido-balance75

Nauseated by the
vile corporate media?
Had enough of their lies, escapism,
omissions and relentless manipulation?

GET EVEN.
Send a donation to 
 The Greanville Post–or
SHARE OUR ARTICLES WIDELY!
But be sure to support YOUR media.
If you don’t, who will?




horiz-black-wide


‘Martyr City’: French MPs Did Not Expect to See ‘Life Go on in Aleppo’

FRONTLINENEWSLOGO-2

ABOVE IMAGE: SAA SOLDIERS (SYRIAN ARMY) CELEBRATE VICTORY IN ALEPPO.

A group of French lawmakers, including Thierry Mariani from the Republicans (LR) party, his fellow LR member Nicolas Dhuicq and former member of the Democratic Movement party Jean Lassale, recently visited Syria. During their trip, the lawmakers visited Aleppo and had an opportunity to see the actual situation in the city recently liberated from terrorists. 

French People Begin to Question Conventional Version of Aleppo Events – Lawmaker Aleppo, Syria’s second largest city which used to be the country’s economic capital, has been mired in the civil war since August 2012 with the western part of the city has been controlled by the Syrian Army while the eastern part was occupied by various Islamist and rebel groups, including al-Nusra Front.
…
On December 16, the Russian Defense Ministry said that the Syrian Army’s operation to liberate militant-controlled eastern Aleppo was completed, however, several hotbeds of militants’ resistance remained. On December 22, the last militants left eastern Aleppo, thus the Syrian Army gained full control over the city.
..
In an exclusive interview with Sputnik French, Mariani pointed out the difference between mainstream media coverage and the real situation on the ground in Aleppo.

Mainstream media coverage on Aleppo gives the impression of a city lying in ruins and totally abandoned by its inhabitants. However, according to the lawmaker, what he saw in Aleppo is radically different.

“It is well-known that some mainstream media outlets are biased. Before I arrived to Aleppo I expected to see a totally ruined city and a completely destroyed population. But what does the reality look like? Some 15 percent of the city is destroyed, 20 percent are seriously damaged, but 65 percent are completely unaffected,” Mariani said…”

“When you come to Aleppo you can see that life goes on,” he added.

The lawmaker also commented on civil casualties in Aleppo during the war. According to Mariani, before the war the population of Aleppo was 3.5 million and 35,000 were killed during the conflict. “I expected to see that the entire Aleppo population was destroyed. In fact, 35,000 dead is awful. The casualties should not be underestimated. But those numbers are far from what mainstream media describes as a ‘total extermination,'” he underscored.
…
Mariani noted that those making inaccurate comments and reports on Aleppo should visit the city to see the situation with their own eyes.

“Aleppo is a martyr city. Now, it is liberated and needs to be rebuilt. I think that more journalists and politicians should visit Aleppo before telling things that do not correspond with reality,” he pointed out.

[dropcap]M[/dropcap]ariani also said that during the visit to Aleppo he and his colleagues met a lot of Franco-Syrians and French-speaking people. According to the lawmaker, a lot of those people are discontent with France’s stance on the Syrian conflict.
..
“They told us the same thing: ‘We can’t see France’s involvement here. It’s wrong.’ Look at those countries that have changed their stance. By contrast, look at Russia that keeps its policy unchanged. The most important thing is to achieve peace. It doesn’t matter what we think about [Syrian President Bashar Assad]. If we want peace first we should find a compromise with him,” Mariani said.

“It is easy to stay in the 7th arrondissement of Paris [where the French National Assembly is situated], read liberal newspapers and then explain what the real situation is [in Syria]. Actually, the situation on the ground is different,” he added.

Mariani also said that he and his colleagues Nicolas Dhuicq and Jean Lassale met with President Assad in Damascus. The parties discussed chemical attacks allegations against the Syrian Army and Syrian government’s plans to reach peace and rebuild the country.

SOURCE: https://sputniknews.com/middleeast/201701091049395970-aleppo-french-lawmakers/

black-horizontal

NOTE: ALL IMAGE CAPTIONS, PULL QUOTES AND COMMENTARY BY THE EDITORS, NOT THE AUTHORS • PLEASE COMMENT AND DEBATE DIRECTLY ON OUR FACEBOOK GROUP. JUST CLICK HERE.
  This is a dispatch from Sputnik News, a Russian news service.  

Note to Commenters
Due to severe hacking attacks in the recent past that brought our site down for up to 11 days with considerable loss of circulation, we exercise extreme caution in the comments we publish, as the comment box has been one of the main arteries to inject malicious code. Because of that comments may not appear immediately, but rest assured that if you are a legitimate commenter your opinion will be published within 24 hours. If your comment fails to appear, and you wish to reach us directly, send us a mail at: editor@greanvillepost.com

We apologize for this inconvenience. 

horiz-long grey

black-horizontal

=SUBSCRIBE TODAY! NOTHING TO LOSE, EVERYTHING TO GAIN.=
free • safe • invaluable

If you appreciate our articles, do the right thing and let us know by subscribing. It’s free and it implies no obligation to you—ever. We just want to have a way to reach our most loyal readers on important occasions when their input is necessary.  In return you get our email newsletter compiling the best of The Greanville Post several times a week.  

horiz-black-wide
ALL CAPTIONS AND PULL-QUOTES BY THE EDITORS, NOT THE AUTHORS.

black-horizontal



John McAfee: Russian hacking intelligence report a dud on arrival—classical storm in a teapot.

FRONTLINENEWSLOGO-2

ABOVE IMAGE: THE TRUMPINATOR—TARGET OF A COLOSSAL WAVE OF DEFAMATION IN THE SERVICE OF DEFENDING A CORRUPT WARMONGERING NEOCON/NEOLIBERAL ESTABLISHMENT. 

Computer guru John McAfee breaks down inconsistencies in FBI’s Grizzly Steppe report

RT.COM \ Published on Jan 5, 2017

Despite recent allegations against Russia, the FBI never actually accessed the allegedly hacked DNC servers. Cyber security expert John McAfee joins ‘News With Ed’ to discuss evidence in the report which supposedly pointed to Russian involvement, which according to McAfee actually vindicates Moscow.

Meanwhile, Moon of Alabama filed this report and commentary:

Intelligence Report On Russian Election Influence Is A Flop

Yesterday the U.S. Director of National Intelligence, the CIA, the NSA and the FBI released a report about alleged Russian hacking of the Democratic National Council and on Russian influence operation on the U.S. presidential election. The report failed to convince anyone. It is indeed a public relation disaster for the Intelligence Community.

John Harwood covers “the economy and national politics for CNBC and the New York Times.” More then 100,000 people follow him on Twitter. He is known as Hillary Clinton supporter and chummy with John Podesta who ran Clinton’s election campaign.

Harwood set up a simple poll. It is not statistically representative but gives a picture of a general sentiment.

This result surely shows the limits of power of the so-called Intelligence Community. But it is worse: yesterday’s “Russian hacking” claims failed to convince even its most ardent and anti-Russian supporters.

Daily Beast: U.S. Spy Report Blames Putin for Hacks, But Doesn’t Back It Up

Kevin Rothrock (Moscow Times):

I cannot believe my eyes. Is this really part of the US government’s intelligence case?

I’ll say it: the declassified USG report “Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections” is an embarrassment.

Susan Hennessey (Lawfare, Brookings):

The unclassified report is underwhelming at best. There is essentially no new information for those who have been paying attention.

Bill Neely (NBCNews):

Lots of key judgements but not many key facts & no open proof in US Intel. report into alleged Russian hacking.

Stephen Hayes (Weekly Standard):

The intel report on Russia is little more than a collection of assertions. Understand protecting sources/methods, but it’s weak.

Julia Ioffe (The Atlantic):

It’s hard to tell if the thinness of the #hacking report is because the proof is qualified, or because the proof doesn’t exist.

@JeffreyGoldberg Have to say, though, I’m hearing from a lot of Russia watchers who are very skeptical of the report. None like Putin/Trump.

When you lost even Julia Ioffe on your anti-Russian issue …

Clapper as DNI and Brennan as CIA chief should have been fired years ago. They will both be gone by January 20. The Intelligence Community will remember them as the chief-authors of this devastating failure.

 

black-horizontal

NOTE: ALL IMAGE CAPTIONS, PULL QUOTES AND COMMENTARY BY THE EDITORS, NOT THE AUTHORS • PLEASE COMMENT AND DEBATE DIRECTLY ON OUR FACEBOOK GROUP. JUST CLICK HERE.

Find RT America in your area: http://rt.com/where-to-watch/

Note to Commenters
Due to severe hacking attacks in the recent past that brought our site down for up to 11 days with considerable loss of circulation, we exercise extreme caution in the comments we publish, as the comment box has been one of the main arteries to inject malicious code. Because of that comments may not appear immediately, but rest assured that if you are a legitimate commenter your opinion will be published within 24 hours. If your comment fails to appear, and you wish to reach us directly, send us a mail at: editor@greanvillepost.com

We apologize for this inconvenience. 

horiz-long grey

black-horizontal

=SUBSCRIBE TODAY! NOTHING TO LOSE, EVERYTHING TO GAIN.=
free • safe • invaluable

If you appreciate our articles, do the right thing and let us know by subscribing. It’s free and it implies no obligation to you—ever. We just want to have a way to reach our most loyal readers on important occasions when their input is necessary.  In return you get our email newsletter compiling the best of The Greanville Post several times a week.  

horiz-black-wide
ALL CAPTIONS AND PULL-QUOTES BY THE EDITORS, NOT THE AUTHORS.

black-horizontal



Obama Vilifies Russia on ABC News Sunday

ABOVE: DISINFORMER GEORGE STEPHANOPOLOUS.

pale blue horiztgp-eye-on-mediaBy the constant administration of lies, the media puppeteers manufacture wars, protect the super-wealthy, and destroy democracy.

by Stephen Lendman

His despicable record of endless wars of aggression, neoliberal harshness, thirdworldizing America, police state rule, and contempt for humanity will remain part of the historical record long after he’s out of office. He’s using his waning days to do more harm than already, leaving office in a blaze of infamy – a rogue head of a pariah state, reviled worldwide for its villainy.

Fed softball questions on ABC News Sunday (see below) he used the occasion for small talk, self-adulation and Russia bashing. Ignored was his record of genocidal high crimes against humanity – nothing asked, nothing explained. He highlighted the fake news US intelligence community report, wrongfully claiming Russia hacked America’s election – excluding any evidence proving it.
 ..
Obama: “Well, I think the report is very clear. Number one, the Russians sought to interfere with the election process – that the cyber hacking that took place by the Russians was part of that campaign, and that they had a clear preference in terms of outcomes.”
 ..
“What I’ve repeatedly said is that you know, our intelligence communities spend a lot of time and effort gathering a lot of strands and a lot of data…(T)his time they’ve got high confidence, and having seen some of the underlying sources and information that they’re basing this on I stand fully behind the report.” 
 …
Fact: No Russian hacking occurred. Information was leaked by one or more Democrat party insiders, angry over Hillary stealing her nomination.
 ..
Fact: No doubt Russia favored Trump over Hillary. So did 63 million Americans, millions more worldwide. Preferring one candidate over another isn’t a criminal act.
 ..
Fact: The CIA, FBI and NSA concocted a fake news report, passing it off fraudulently as legitimate. Americans overwhelmingly rejected it. The report laid an egg.
 ..
Fact: Obama “stand(s) fully behind” a Big Lie. DNI head James Clapper admitted Russia had no effect on the election’s outcome. No voting machines were tampered with, he explained.
..
Fact: After his Friday intelligence briefing, including classified material not publicly released, Trump emphatically said there was “absolutely no effect on the outcome of the election.”
 ..
Obama: “Vladimir Putin (isn’t) on our team. If we get to a point where people in this country feel more affinity with a leader who is an adversary and view the United States and our way of life as a threat to him, then we’re gonna have bigger problems than just cyber hacking.”
..
Fact: Putin is a democrat, a staunch supporter of world peace, stability, and mutual cooperation among all nations.
 ..
Fact: Obama is a soon to leave office rogue head of a pariah state; a warrior, not a peacemaker; a supporter of terrorism, not its adversary; a menace to humanity; a disgrace to the high office he’s held for eight painfully long years.
 ..
He warned America’s NATO allies with upcoming elections to be wary of (nonexistent) Russian interference, adding:
 ..
“(T)he Russians intended to meddle and they meddled. And it could be another country in the future.”
 ..

As of January 9, he has 11 days left in office – plenty of time for whatever additional mischief he may have in mind.

A personal note:

I wrote about Obama’s deplorable US Senate voting record, his 2007-08 campaign for the White House, his promises made and broken, and election day 2008 when Chicago, his adopted home city, celebrated his triumph exuberantly. New year’s eve came early.
…
My fears about what might lie ahead were underestimated. Who could have imagined an administration exceeding the worst of Bush/Cheney?

Who could have anticipated endless wars on humanity at home and abroad, the greatest wealth disparity in US history on his watch, a leader contemptuous of virtually everything he claimed to stand for.

It’s Trump’s turn now. Will he continue Obama’s deplorable agenda or go a different way? Will he be a responsible leader or just another dirty politician? It’s his choice to make.

We are not afraid to publish the original materials in full. We do not suppress opposing information, which is exactly what the mainstream media does and have done for over 100 years in America, presenting a completely rump and manipulated version of reality favoring only the 0.000001% viewpoint and interests.

APPENDIX

AS CARRIED BY ABC NEWS
The Stephanopolous “interview” with Obama / The Transcript

CLINTON SYCOPHANT GEORGE STEPHANOPOLOUS HAS LONG BEEN A RELIABLE MEDIA COURTIER, AN OVERPAID PROPAGANDIST FOR THE DEMOCRATS  (THE TOP SLOT IS FILLED BY CBS/PBS “ELDER STATESMAN” CHARLIE ROSE), AND THEREBY FOR THE DUOPOLY, AS IS MOST IF NOT THE ENTIRE TOP LAYER OF THE PRESS CORPS IN THE UNITED STATES.

WALK-AND-TALK INTERVIEW OBAMA WITH ABC NEWS REPORTER GEO. STEPHANOPOLOUS
                 

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Mr. President, thank you for doing this. As we're walking towards your office I have to think you're going to miss this short commute.

BARACK OBAMA: [laughs] I am, it's one of the biggest benefits of being president that you really don't think about until you get here. I have never had to travel more than thirty seconds from home to office, and it's because of that that I've been able to maintain, you know, really a family life that has nurtured and sustained me during this time.

STEPHANOPOULOS: How long did it take for the White House to feel like home though?

OBAMA: You know, it, it took shorter, I think, for us, just because when you've got little kids, and you're tucking them in –

STEPHANOPOULOS: It's home.

OBAMA: It's home, right? When you open a door and they're in their pajamas and they're, you know, wrestling with you and asking you, you know, to read to them and stuff, you know it starts feeling like home pretty quick. Not to mention having a mother-in-law upstairs, and the dog, and now two. It feels even more like home now because you have all these memories that were formed watching your kids grow up.

STEPHANOPOULOS: You know you talk about the kids, and I know you all were pretty, a little bit apprehensive coming into the White House, they were young. Was it a good experience for them?

OBAMA: You know, you don't know how it would have turned out if they'd grown up in Chicago instead, and a more normal environment. All I can say is they have turned out to be terrific young women. We were concerned mostly about whether they'd develop an attitude, right?

STEPHANOPOULOS: How not, yeah.

OBAMA: And they are, you know, sweet, kind, funny, smart, respectful people, and they treat everybody with respect. That's not just the biases of a parent. You know, we feel pretty good when we hear back from friends, cause they still have sleepovers and they go to other folks houses and when the parents say, oh you know, Malia, she's just so sweet, or Sasha helped to pick up the dishes, what is it that you're doing to –

STEPHANOPOULOS: They never complain about it?

OBAMA: You know, they complained about Secret Service as they became teenagers, and Secret Service has done the very best job they could accommodating them, so it hasn't restricted any of their activities, but as you might imagine, if you're a teenager having a couple of people with microphones –

STEPHANOPOULOS: Always on your tail, yeah.

OBAMA: and guns always following you around, that could grate on them. But you know, they've handled it with grace and I give Michelle most of the credit for how well they've done, but I also just think they are graceful, good young, young women.

STEPHANOPOULOS: This part of the White House is so iconic.

OBAMA: It's my favorite, yeah. This walk. It--it doesn't matter what time of day it is, in some ways I feel more attached to this walk even than the Oval Office.

STEPHANOPOULOS: I believe it.

OBAMA: Yeah. There's something about these steps and thinking about everybody who's walked here and all the business that's been done here.

STEPHANOPOULOS: And business gets done on this walk.

OBAMA: Yes, exactly. And even when you go up this ramp, and you think about FDR wheeling himself up, you know, got a little cigarette holder in his mouth, and it, that, that awe that you feel, that reverence that you feel for the place never entirely leaves.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Well that's one of the things I was going ask you, because I know you kept in touch with people by reading those letters every day.

OBAMA: Yes.

STEPHANOPOULOS: How did you keep in touch with the presidency?

OBAMA: It's an interesting question. I, more than anything, obviously the presidency is the people, and it's been interesting the emotions in the last few months. What you realize is that you may never have the team that is together in the same way, under the same pressures, and the attachments that you make to folks from your chief of staff down to –

STEPHANOPOULOS: It's the ultimate bunker.

OBAMA: It is, and the people here have been extraordinary. We had a farewell dinner for some of my senior staff, and generally everybody likes to talk about how cool I was. I had trouble getting through just a few remarks, because not only do you appreciate the sacrifices they've made and the hours they've kept and the soccer games they missed and the birthday parties, but I also had a lot of young people who came in here, and this probably, you know, echoes with you, in your own experience, you were young when you got here.

STEPHANOPOULOS: It didn't feel like it when I left.

OBAMA: Yeah, but you know, now suddenly you got members of your team who were 23, 24. They've met their wives here, or their husbands here.

STEPHANOPOULOS: And you have a lot of eight year people.

OBAMA: Yeah, and you, and they start bringing in their kids, who you think should be babies and now are in second grade or something, and you've watched them grow up. So I think what ends up happening is you end up maintaining those networks and those contacts, but the concentrated interactions and experience that you have here, I don't think, I don't expect you can duplicate anyplace else.

STEPHANOPOULOS: We're about to walk into the Oval, and I was just wondering, the big gut-check decisions, did you make them in there or up in the Treaty Room at home?

OBAMA: I think I made them on this walk sometimes. You know, there are times where I'd say the Oval Office, you use to gather the facts. The decisions you probably make late at night, or at least I do, I'm kind of a night owl, up there. But there are some times where you think you've made a decision, but during that walk, where you're announcing the decision, you've just got to make sure that, you're prepared to live with it, because as you know George, a lot of these decisions are not-- the outcomes are uncertain.

OVAL OFFICE INTERVIEW

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: As you said, it is very busy, newsy day here, that shooting down in Fort Lauderdale this afternoon. Do we know enough now to know if it was an act of terror?

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: As a general rule, until I've got all the information, George, I don't wanna comment on it other than just to say how heartbroken we are for the families who've been affected. These kinds of tragedies have happened too often during the eight years that I've been president. The pain, the grief, the shock that they must be going through is enormous. I've asked me staff to reach out to the mayor down there and make sure that coordination between the state and local officials is what it should be. But I think we'll find out over the next 24 hours exactly how this happened and what motivated this individual.

STEPHANOPOULOS: And also just a few minutes ago, this intelligence report came out on the Russian activities, declassified version. Pretty stark opening sentences. "Russian president Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign. We further assess that Putin and the Russian government developed a clear preference for President-Elect Trump." President Putin was trying to elect Trump?

OBAMA: Well, I think the report is very clear. Number one, the Russians sought to interfere with the election process-- that the cyber hacking that took place by the Russians was part of that campaign, and that they had a clear preference in terms of outcomes.

What-- what I've repeatedly said is that you know, our intelligence communities spend a lot of time and effort gathering a lot of strands and a lot of data. There are times where they're very cautious and they say, "We think this is what happened, but we're not certain."

STEPHANOPOULOS: You're saying high confidence here--

OBAMA: The-- this time they've got high confidence, and having seen some of the underlying sources and information that they're basing this on I stand fully behind the-- the report.

STEPHANOPOULOS: What does that tell you about what President Putin is trying to do right now? And I-- I think back to 2012 when Mitt Romney talked about Russia being the number one geostrategic threat, you kinda dismissed him in the second debate--

OBAMA: I did.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Did you underestimate Vladimir Putin?

OBAMA: You know, I don't think I underestimated him, but I think that I underestimated the degree to which, in this new information age, it is possible for misinformation for cyber hacking and so forth to have an impact on our open societies, our open systems, to insinuate themselves into our democratic practices in ways that I think are accelerating.

And so part of the reason that I ordered this report was not simply to re-litigate what happened over the last several months, but rather to make sure that we understand this is something that Putin has been doing for quite some time in Europe, initially in the former satellite states where there are a lot of Russian speakers, but increasingly in Western democracies.

There are gonna be elections coming up among our NATO allies that we have to pay attention to. I anticipate that this kind of thing can happen again here. And so in addition to the report assessing what exactly happened, what we have also done is to make sure that the Department of Homeland Security and our intelligence teams are working with the various folks who run our elections.

And one of the things that I've urged the president-elect to do is to develop a strong working relationship with the intelligence community and I think it's important that Congress, on a bipartisan basis, work with the next administration looking forward to make sure that this kind of influence is minimized--

STEPHANOPOULOS: He-- he met with the intelligence leaders this afternoon.

OBAMA: Yeah--

STEPHANOPOULOS: Praised their work at the top. Still didn't seem to accept their conclusions fully. He talked about Russia and China and-- and other countries. They made no assessment on whether this affected the outcome of the election. He said very clearly it had no effect on the outcome. What do you think?

OBAMA: You know, I think there are a lot of factors going into an election. I think the bottom line is-- is that Donald Trump is gonna be sworn in as the 45th President of the United States of America. And it's not necessarily profitable to sort of try to untangle all the different factors that went into it.

The issue here is you have I think the-- the clear example of how, if we're not vigilant foreign countries can have an impact on the political debate in the United States in ways that might not have been true 10, 20, 30 years ago in-- in part because of the way news is transmitted and in part because so many people are skeptical of mainstream news organizations that-- everything's true and everything's false. You know nothing-- nothing is-- is settled. Everything is contested.

In that kind of environment, where there's so much skepticism about information that's coming in, we're gonna have to spend a lot more time thinking about how do we protect our democratic process and as I've been saying for years, we're gonna have to spend a lot more time on cyber security. That's one of the reasons why I'd ordered a commission--

STEPHANOPOULOS: But bottom line, this time Vladimir Putin got what he wanted.

OBAMA: Well-- look, I-- I think that what is true is that the Russians intended to meddle, and they meddled. And it could be another country in the future. It could be another election where you know, the-- the alignments between Republicans and Democrats are different than they were this time and—and--who a foreign country prefers.

And that's why I hope that this does not continue to be viewed purely through a partisan lens. I think there are Republicans as well as Democrats who are concerned about this. And the-- the two things we need to do, George-- number one, we have to spend a lot more time, energy, resources on cyber security. And it makes--what makes this difficult is because it's not just a government problem. It is a private sector and government problem. And there's gotta be a lot more cooperation. That was one of the key recommendations of this commissions that I got a report from just a few weeks ago.

And the second thing we have to do is to make sure that all of us think about how we approach our elections and our democracy not only to secure them from vote tampering, but also to make sure that we understand when propaganda is being churned through the system.

And-- and one of the things I-- I'll be honest with you, George. One of the things that I am concerned about is the degree to which we've seen a lot of commentary lately where there were, there are Republicans or pundits or cable commentators who seemed to have more confidence in Vladimir Putin than fellow Americans because those fellow Americans were Democrats. That cannot be.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Does that include the president-elect?

OBAMA: Well, what I will say is that--and I said this right after the election--we have to remind ourselves we're on the same team. Vladimir Putin's not on our team. If we get to a point where people in this country feel more affinity with a leader who is an adversary and view the United States and our way of life as a threat to him, then we're gonna have bigger problems than just cyber hacking.

STEPHANOPOULOS: You-- you've talked to the president-elect Trump now several times over the course of this transition. What have you tried to impress on him about the job?

OBAMA: Well, as I've said before, the-- the conversations have been cordial. He has been open to suggestions, and the main thing that I've tried to transmit is that there's a different between governing and campaigning, so that what he has to appreciate is as soon as you walk into this office after you've been sworn in, you're now in charge of the largest organization on Earth.

You can't manage it the way you would manage a family business. You can't manage it the way you would manage a Senate office. I-- I was a senator before I became president. And so you have to have a strong team around you. You have to have respect for institutions and the process to make good decisions because you are inherently reliant on other folks.

So when I talked to him about-- our intelligence agencies, what I've said to him is-- is that there are gonna be times where you've got raw intelligence that comes in and in my experience, over eight years, the intelligence community is pretty good about saying, "Look, we can't say for certain what this means." But there are gonna be times where the only way you can make a good decision is if you have confidence that the process is working, and the people that you put in charge are giving you their very best assessments.

STEPHANOPOULOS: How has he impressed you?

OBAMA: You know, he is somebody who I think is very engaging and gregarious.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Do you like him?

OBAMA: You know, I've enjoyed the conversations that we've had. He is somebody who I think is not lacking in confidence, which is I think--

STEPHANOPOULOS: Some say that about you too.

OBAMA: Well, that's what I was saying. It-- it's-- it's probably a prerequisite for the job, or at least you have to have enough craziness to think that you can do the job. I-- I think that he has not spent a lot of time sweating the details of, you know, all the policies that--

STEPHANOPOULOS: Does that worry you?

OBAMA: Well, I think that can be both a strength and a weakness. I think it depends on how he approaches it. If he-- if it gives him fresh eyes, then that can be valuable. But it also requires you knowing what you don't know and putting in place people who do have the kinds of experience and background and-- and knowledge that can inform good decision making. And look, I-- I-- I think it's fair to say that he and I are-- are sort of opposites in some ways.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Voters often do that, don't they?

OBAMA: Yeah. Yeah. But so-- so let's say I'm on the-- the policy wonk end of the spectrum. As much as I can dive into a briefing book and really work to-- to master various subjects that come before my desk, I'm still not an expert on a huge amount of the stuff that we work on. But I do make sure that I've got people who are experts that are helping me make the best decisions possible.

And if you don't have good people, and you don't have a good process and you don't have, at some level, the basic reverence for this office, and an understanding of the-- the incredible responsibilities and obligations, then, I think you can get into trouble.

STEPHANOPOULOS: You're also not much of a tweeter. He was on a tirade (LAUGH) this morning, sent out a lot of tweets early this morning. Clearly, according to him and his people, he's gonna keep on doing it when he's sitting there behind that desk. Good idea?

OBAMA: On the one hand information is--is moving quick, and-- I-- I-- or-- or the way in which people consume information is changing so fast. Clearly this worked for him, and it gives him a direct connection to a lot of the people that voted for him.

I-- in-- I've said to him, and I think others have said to him that the day that he is the President of the United States, there are world capitals and financial markets and people all around the world who take really seriously what he says, and in a way that's just not true before you're actually sworn in as president.

STEPHANOPOULOS: People take seriously what you say as well. And during the campaign-- many of your speeches you say, "All the progress we've made in the last eight years go out the window if we don't win." Still think that?

OBAMA: No. (SIGH) I think that the-- the risk to all the progress we've made was at stake in the election because not just the president-elect but a lot of members of Congress, including now the Speaker of the House and the Senate majority leader, have said that their principal agenda was to undo a lot of this progress. But as I've been talking about over the last several days when it comes to health care, the gains that we've made are there. Twenty million people have health insurance that didn't have it before. The uninsured rate is the lowest it's ever been.

The rise in health care costs since Obamacare, the Affordable Care Act was passed, have been at their lowest rate in 50 years. Those savings have extended the Medicare trust fund by 11 years. So we-- we've got-- we've got a baseline of facts. Here-- here-- here's-- here's where we were, here's where we are now. So it is true theoretically that all that progress can be undone, and suddenly 20 million people or more don't have health insurance.

But as I think Republicans now are recognizing that's-- may not be what the American people, including even Trump voters, are looking for. And my hope is that the president-elect, members of Congress from both parties look at, "Where have we objectively made progress, where things are working better?" Don't undo things just because I did them. I don't have pride of authorship. I said today in a forum on health care if the Republicans can come up with a system that insures more people cheaper, better I will be the first one--

STEPHANOPOULOS: And I can tell by your smile you don't think they can do it?

OBAMA: Well, I'm skeptical that they can do it mainly because for seven years now, including when we first tried to pass health care, I said to 'em, "Okay, if-- if this doesn't work tell me what does." In this room I remember having meetings with Republican senators who initially had been trying to engage but saw that the politics of ‘no’ were growing inside the Republican Party. And I remember having a conversation in the Oval Office with one of those senators who was-- was starting to get a little sheepish about (LAUGH) what compromises might-- garner his support.

And finally I asked him, "Is there any changes I could make that would get you to support this?" And he said, "Probably not, Mr. President," which was a nice change in terms of just candor. But what-- what that means then is, is that now the burden is to take a look. All right, if-- if-- if-- if you think that we've overregulated in the environmental space what I can show you is that we have tripled the amount of wind power in this country, increased by tenfold the amount of solar power. We are producing as much oil and gas as we've ever produced.

Gas is at two bucks a gallon. Utility rates and electricity rates are low. So you will, it seems like the energy policy we got right now is working pretty good. If you think you got a better idea in terms of how to approach this that's not gonna result in more pollution, and more asthma, and more illness then put your ideas out there. But don't just oppose things because, "This was Obama's agenda."

STEPHANOPOULOS: Sounds like that's what's happening right now.

OBAMA: Well, that's what's happening at the moment. But you know, the American people-- are-- are both anxious for change. We're in a time of-- of flux. You know, the-- the globe is shrinking, the inform age-- information age is-- is bringing a lot of changes. People are anxious about their future and their children's futures. But they don't want folks to be reckless and they don't want this town to just be tit-for-tat. And-- you know, one of the gratifying things, I think, about the end of my presidency-- even though admittedly-- my successor ran against a lot of what we stood for, is when you look at the individual issues and the progress that we've made on a lot of those issues, we got the support of a pretty decent majority. Even on health care what you've seen is a lot of stories surfacing lately about people who said, "Well, I voted for Trump but I don't think he's really gonna take away my health care--"

STEPHANOPOULOS: So is Obamacare gonna survive?

OBAMA: I think it will. Or-- it may be called something else. And-- and as I said (LAUGH) I don't-- I don't mind. If in fact the Republicans make some modifications, some of which I may have been seeking previously, but they wouldn't cooperate because they didn't wanna-- make the system work, and re-label it as Trumpcare, I'm fine with that. Because what I'm thinking about are the millions of people, many of whom write me very personal letters-- "Dear Mr. President: I did not vote for you. I was against Obamacare. And then my son who didn't have health insurance signed up and we just found out that he had an illness. And thankfully he's now covered, otherwise he might not have gotten treatment and I might have lost my house."

"Dear Mr. President: You know, my husband got hooked on opioids and thank God we have coverage and were able to access substance abuse. He's clean now, he's gone back to work." You have people around the country who are benefitting from the steps that we've taken and as long as they continue to get helped, then at least I'll know in my own mind that the work we did here had a lasting impact.

STEPHANOPOULOS: You've often said that your toughest day in office was the day of the Newtown shootings. What was your toughest decision?

OBAMA: (SIGH) Toughest decision was early in my presidency when I ordered 30,000 more troops into Afghanistan. As somebody who had run to end a large troop presence overseas. Now, I had said from the start that I thought Iraq was a mistake, that we should have stayed focused on Afghanistan. I think it was the right decision because the Taliban at that point had gotten a lot of momentum before I'd gotten into office, partly because we hadn't been paying attention as much as we needed to to Afghanistan.

And since that time we've been able to build up the Afghan security forces and stabilize it. But that was the first time in which I looked out at a crowd of West Point graduates and knew that some of those might not come back because of-- because of that decision--

STEPHANOPOULOS: How disappointing --then how disappointing is it to you that even though it's far fewer, there would still be troops in Afghanistan, still be troops in Iraq as you leave?

OBAMA: Yeah. Well, one of the things that I've learned, and I think we've all learned, is that we are not going to get the kind of decisive, permanent victories in this fight against terrorism that we would get from fighting another country. We're not going to get that MacArthur/Emperor moment, because by definition, even after decimating Al Qaeda in the Fata, even after taking out bin Laden there's still people there who have both the--the interest and the capacity if we don't maintain vigilance to strike against the United States.

And these are still countries that are fragile enough that we're gonna have to partner with them in some way. But what we have done, I think, is build a model from a lot of hard lessons in Afghanistan and Iraq-- but in other places around the world, where we are working with them in an advisory capacity.

It still puts burden on some troops of ours who are there as advisors and facilitators. But we don't have this huge footprint, we are less likely to be targeted as, you know, occupiers. And if you look at the current Mosul campaign again-- against ISIL, for example the-- the few thousand troops that we have there to support that effort allows the Iraqi military to move forward in an effective way.

Now, would they do it as fast as if we had 50,000 or 100,000 Marines in there? Obviously not. But it does give us the ability to make sure that we are strengthening those folk who are interested in building up their countries rather than destroying them, and doing so in a way that is sustainable and doesn't put a constant burden on the amazing men and women that we've got in uniform.

STEPHANOPOULOS: What has to be a disappointment on the home front is that-- it looks like the Democratic Party got pretty hollowed out on your watch, about 1,000 seats lost in the Congress, Senate, governors, state houses. Is that on you?

OBAMA: I take some responsibility on that. I-- I think that some of it was circumstances. If you look at-- what happened, I came in in the middle of the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. And unlike FDR who waited-- well, didn't take office until about three years into the Great Depression, it was happening just as I was elected.

I think we did a really good job in saving this economy and putting us back on the track of growth. But what that meant is in 2010 there were a lot of folks who were still out of work. There were a lot of folks who had lost their homes or saw their home values plummet, their 401k's plummet.

And we were just at the beginnings of a recovery. And the, you know, whoever is president at that point is gonna get hit and his party's gonna get hit. That then means that suddenly you've got a redistricting in which a lot of state legislatures are now Republican. They draw lines that give a huge structural advantage in subsequent elections.

So-- so some of this was circumstances. But what I think that what is also true is that partly because my docket was really full here, so I couldn't be both chief organizer of the Democratic Party and function as Commander-in-Chief and President of the United States. We did not begin what I think needs to happen over the long haul, and that is rebuild the Democratic Party at the ground level.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Part of your job now?

OBAMA: Well, I think that it's something that I have an interest in. As-- as you know, George, my entire career, I started as a community organizer. Every one of my campaigns was premised on getting new people involved. And if there's a theme in my public career it's that if ordinary people get involved then good things happen. So I want to see the Democratic Party move in that direction. And what that means is that we aren't just micro-targeting to eke out presidential victories; it means that we're showing up in places where right now we're not winning a lot.

And if you look at sort of how politics has divided itself here in this country, the big divide right now is between urban areas, which have become increasingly Democratic, and rural or exurban areas that feel as if they're being ignored. And if Democrats are not showing up in those places, even if you-- even if you're not gonna win right away but if you're not in there at least making an argument that, "Hey, you know what? It's the Democrats who are trying to raise your minimum wage.

"It's the Democrats who are trying to make sure you got health care or that your health care costs aren't killing ya. It's Democrats who were making sure that your kids aren't drinking polluted water. It's Democrats who are trying to reign in the banks if they engage in excesses so that you don't end up having a problem." If we're not there making the argument then the-- the cultural gulf that Republicans try to exploit saying, "Ah, these city slickers: they're all looking down on you, they don't care about you. They're just trying to help out their various special interest constituencies," that argument ends up being successful. And so we've got to do a better job of showing up. And I was able to do that when I was the candidate. But I have not-- I've not seen or-- or presided over that kind of systematic outreach that I think needs to happen.

STEPHANOPOULOS: This is JFK's desk, right?

OBAMA: Yeah. He used it.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Famous story about him: Clare Booth Luce, the diplomat, former Congresswoman goes to him in 1962. He asks her, "What's on your mind?" She says, "The greater the man, the easier it is to describe him in a single sentence." And she said to him, "What's your sentence?" What's your sentence?

OBAMA: What was JFK's answer?

STEPHANOPOULOS: “I don't care what history thinks."

OBAMA: (LAUGH) I'm sure he did. (LAUGH) (PAUSE) I'd like to think that-- maybe the sentence is-- "President Obama believed deeply in this democracy and the American people." Because-- as I reflect back on what's worked for me in this office it's been that I've-- I've gotten people who maybe didn't believe in the process to get engaged. Ironically, I've even gotten the other side that maybe didn't believe in the process to get engaged. I, you know, I-- I-- I'm-- I gather I'm the-- the father of the Tea Party. I-- I invigorated the grassroots in the Republican Party as well as the Democratic Party. So, you know, I-- if-- health care got done because there were a lot of people out there who aren't professional politicians, but are citizens, who pushed for it even when the politics was hard.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But did you succeed on your own terms? Back in the campaign you talked about Ronald Reagan changing the trajectory of the country, setting on a fundamentally different path. Do you think you did that?

OBAMA: I think I did in the sense that there's a whole generation coming up behind us that was engaged, inspired, worked for change during the course of my presidency, saw what was possible. And that-- that-- that generation, it's coming. They're not the majority yet but they're gonna be the majority soon. And when you look at what they believe in, when they, you look at how they value diversity, how they believe in science, how they care about the environment, how they believe in, you know, everybody getting a fair shot, how they believe in not discriminating against people for sexual orientation and you know, their belief that we have to work with other countries to create a more peaceful world and-- and to alleviate poverty, that's the majority of-- of an entire generation that's coming up behind us.

STEPHANOPOULOS: They didn't come out to vote?

OBAMA: Well, you know, they came out to vote for me. And they came out to vote where that-- spirit was touched. The next phase and this is part of what I'm interested in doing after I get out of the presidency is to make sure that I'm working with that next generation so that they understand you can't just rely on inspiration. There's a little perspiration involved in bringing about change too. That you have to be organized, that you have to vote even when it's not exciting.

You have to be involved during midterm elections, you have to care about what happens at a school board level. You have to be involved in terms of what's happening in your local neighborhood and what issues are there. So-- so I think that there's gonna be a lot of work to do in order to consolidate the transformations that I was interested in. But I--but the spirit's there and-- and that's not just my imagination. I think if you look at surveys and attitudes among young people, you see it.

STEPHANOPOULOS: I imagine you think the presidency's something you get better at over time?

OBAMA: You do.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But at what point does the experience become a liability? And what put this in my mind was reading Bob Gates' memoir. And he talks about being in the meetings with you and talking about the raid on Osama bin Laden, saying, "Maybe he's getting too cautious; he's been there too long." Is that a risk?

OBAMA: Well, what I'll say is this: I believe in term limits for presidents because I think that there is no doubt I'm a better president now than I was when I start. In fact, I-- I would argue that I-- I am the best president I've ever been over the last year or-- or two. My team is more effective than it's ever been. But what is also true is that number one, this is grueling. And sustaining the energy and focus involved in doing a good job I think starts to-- starts to gets tougher the longer you do it.

The second thing is, the bubble's the bubble. And-- and I think we've done a pretty good job staying in touch with the American people. But at a certain point you can't help but lose some feel for what's on the ground because you're not on the ground and-- and--

STEPHANOPOULOS: You didn't think Donald Trump could win?

OBAMA: Case in point. So-- so that tells me that there is-- there-- there's a utility in the democracy refreshing itself on an ongoing basis. And-- and that's part of what I tried to describe to my team and supporters after the election, there was a lot of disappointment. You know, I--what I've said to them is, "Look, we-- we ran our leg of the race and we did a darn good job." I can document-- in fact, this past week we're-- we've put out memos from every agency showing what did we do. Try to be as honest as possible. There's a little hype involved obviously. It's spin because it's our agencies. We-- we feel some pride about it. But tried to be self-critical as well. And-- and I can honestly say, George-- and I don't think there's a lot of dispute for this. You-- you can argue that we didn't get everything done that we wanted to get done, but I can make a really strong argument, and I think prove, that by almost every measure the country's better off now than when I started.

STEPHANOPOULOS: W--

OBAMA: And so just to finish the thought, what that means then is that if we started here and we're now here, just like I described in health care, yeah, somebody comes in, they got new ideas, maybe ideas that are completely opposite of my ideas. Maybe some of it goes, maybe some of that progress goes back. Maybe they think of some things we didn't think of, and so in some other areas-- we can learn something.

But that just gives sort of the democracy an opportunity to test ideas, for those who lost to catch their breath, regain energy, reenergize themselves and then get back in the arena, and then we'll make some more progress in the future.

STEPHANOPOULOS: One-- one possible big exception: In the first line of your biography it's probably going to be "first African-American president."

OBAMA: Yeah.

STEPHANOPOULOS: The heart of your promise when you first burst on the national scene, bringing everyone together. And you look now and most African-Americans think we've gone backwards on race relations over the last eight years. What do you say to that?

OBAMA: I-- (SIGH) I am absolutely convinced that race relations on the whole are actually better now than they were 20 years--

STEPHANOPOULOS: Better now?

OBAMA: Yes. But we have greater awareness of where we're falling short than we used to. Let's just take the example of-- community police relations. I mean, the truth of the matter is that-- that the problem of police shootings and reactions in the community-- George, you and I are about the same age. I-- I think you remember what happened in Los Angeles after Rodney King, I think you remember what-- the divisions that happened after the O.J. trial. I think you -- the-- the notion that somehow any of that is new isn't the case.

What is true, though, is now we've got a bunch of videos that whatever side of the issue you're on, raises the temperature on these issues and makes people really focused and-- and-- and-- and trying to figure out, "What exactly is this?" And I think that is a healthy thing. But I also-- I'm not so out of touch that I don't see how young people interact today. And what's--

STEPHANOPOULOS: That horrific Facebook Live video yesterday--

OBAMA: And, well, it was horrific. And that's an example of something that it's not as if that's the first time that a hate crime has taken place in this country. Hate crimes have been taking place for hundreds of years in this country, but it's there on video. And the-- the-- the sort of seeing cruelty and callousness of that sort from young people is heartbreaking. And so naturally if you see a video like that you're gonna say to yourself, "My God, this is horrible," and-- and rightfully so.

But that allows us then to talk about how-- how-- how do we break free from those kinds of attitudes? And I think that we are in a position to continue to make progress, but it's gonna require us to both recognize what the problems are, also recognize the-- the-- the progress we've made. Last point I'd make on this, since we're on criminal justice: During the course of my presidency crime has been the lowest it's been probably since the '60s.

But you wouldn't know it if you were watching TV or looking at the internet, and you certainly wouldn't know it, listening to this past campaign. There are some exceptions: Chicago, my hometown, in particular. But overall in the country this is a much safer place than it used to be.

But if you ask the average person they'd tell ya, "Naw, it's much more dangerous," despite the fact that violent crime has dropped precipitously. And so we have to recognize we've got some big problems on race, just like we got still big problems on crime, just like we got big problems on just about everything. But we also have to make sure that we've-- draw confidence from the progress that we have made, 'cause otherwise, you get into this cycle of cynicism.

And you're also-- and I warn young people that I interact with about this-- you get into unrealistic expectations where you think that, "Oh, we're gonna eliminate racism like that. After Obama's elected how could there be any racism?" (LAUGH) Well, you know, that-- that-- that was never a realistic expectation.

STEPHANOPOULOS: I have one final question. I have a very strong memory of your inaugural. In that moment you're walking out of the Capitol, you see them all for the first time and you kind of pause and take it all in. Do you remember what you were thinking and feeling at that moment?

OBAMA: The two inaugurations were different. The first inauguration I was thinking to myself, "Let's make sure I don't screw this up." I think there is-- people always talk about how cool I am. I don't care how cool you are. JFK gave probably the greatest inauguration speech ever that first time, but I guarantee you when he first walked out there he was thinking, "Goodness gracious (LAUGH) this is-- this is-- this is big and I better be up to the task." I think the second inauguration you may recall I-- I finished my speech—

STEPHANOPOULOS: You turned around--

OBAMA:--I was walking out and I decided, "You know what? Let me turn back and-- and remember this." And-- and what I remember thinking at that point, having gone through both the ups and downs of my first four years, and seeing the sea of people was, "What a remarkable country this is and how lucky am I that-- that we live in a place where the son of a single mom, not born into any kind of fame or fortune, in a pretty remote state somehow can end up be in a position to-- to make a difference."

STEPHANOPOULOS: And at that moment, just a little under two weeks from now, when President-elect Trump finishes the oath, power passes from you to him, what emotion will you be left with?

OBAMA: It's hard to say. It's hard to anticipate. I can tell you what I'm feeling right now is that I'm busier than I expected these last two weeks. A great deal of emotion around the people that I've worked with and the gratitude I feel for the sacrifices they've made on behalf of the American people, but also on behalf of me personally. And I think I will still feel that same appreciation for what Churchill and others have said is the worst form of government except all the alternatives.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Mr. President, thank you very much.

OBAMA: Thank you.

NOTE: ALL IMAGE CAPTIONS, PULL QUOTES AND COMMENTARY BY THE EDITORS, NOT THE AUTHORS

BAR-msm-media-lies

PLEASE COMMENT AND DEBATE DIRECTLY ON OUR FACEBOOK GROUP INSTALLATION

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Note to Commenters
Due to severe hacking attacks in the recent past that brought our site down for up to 11 days with considerable loss of circulation, we exercise extreme caution in the comments we publish, as the comment box has been one of the main arteries to inject malicious code. Because of that comments may not appear immediately, but rest assured that if you are a legitimate commenter your opinion will be published within 24 hours. If your comment fails to appear, and you wish to reach us directly, send us a mail at: editor@greanvillepost.com

We apologize for this inconvenience. 

horiz-long grey
=SUBSCRIBE TODAY! NOTHING TO LOSE, EVERYTHING TO GAIN.=
free • safe • invaluable

If you appreciate our articles, do the right thing and let us know by subscribing. It’s free and it implies no obligation to you—ever. We just want to have a way to reach our most loyal readers on important occasions when their input is necessary.  In return you get our email newsletter compiling the best of The Greanville Post several times a week.  

[email-subscribers namefield=”YES” desc=”” group=”Public”]

bandido-balance75

Nauseated by the
vile corporate media?
Had enough of their lies, escapism,
omissions and relentless manipulation?

GET EVEN.
Send a donation to 
 The Greanville Post–or
SHARE OUR ARTICLES WIDELY!
But be sure to support YOUR media.
If you don’t, who will?




horiz-black-wide