The Stooge and the Statesman

If your bubble has burst, you can hardly listen to him through to the end. And if you somehow succeed you will develop an increased awareness of his deception. And of your own disgust.

Over 4,700 words that perfectly fit the narrative that the mainstream media daily foist off on the public. Indeed MSM has failed us all countless times, and though deception was revealed, no retraction followed. Yet this man persists. Dour mug, focused eye, a measured declaring, as of one who bears upon his shoulders fathomless commitments – we had gotten used to it. Patently, there’s an impressive number of people who actually believe he does.

Con man Obama at the UNO: shameless lies, as usual.

Obama at the UNO: shameless, criminal lies, as usual.

If the U.S. weren’t sick with Corporatism, this man wouldn’t be on that podium lying to us all. Advanced symptoms of the disease are apparent, as corporations dominate nearly every aspect of society, and government serves them as a tool to consolidate their power ever further. A Corporate State has a Corporate Government, which enacts Corporate Laws, pushes for a Corporate Economy, and then provides Corporate Jobs (aka McJobs), Corporate Education, and Corporate Healthcare to a Corporate Citizenry. A Corporate State is a Corporation-ruled state.

…
In a Corporate State no one but a stooge will stand as President. No matter whether in charge is a bubba from Arkansas, a sham cowboy, a sissy black, or a warmongering harebrained bitch: a stooge bears no responsibility. However indecent or heinous he might be, as long as he’s doing his Corporate Bidding, he’ll brazenly beat the rap. The rise of dissenting voices will remain offstage; unheard, ineffective. A Corporate State holds power over the citizens through the Corporate Media apparatus, which spreads scourge by shaping opinion.

Mesmerized by News channels and distracted by status quo-supporting Hollywood paradigm, Corporate Citizenry firmly believes itself to be free and safe, while shamelessly parroting events and statements it was indoctrinated to, proudly saluting its flag, listening to and thanking the Stooge-in-Chief.

…
At the UN General Assembly on September 28, U.S. President Barack Obama praised the founding, 70 years ago, of the institution and its achievements, acknowledging unparalleled advances in human liberty and prosperity, diplomatic cooperation, a buttress to global economy, and the lift of a billion people from poverty. Despite many notches scored by the UN, his administration bypassed it entirely when it was time to invade Libya, and is currently doing the same in Syria, where it is bombing with no UN Security Council mandate or invitation by the duly-elected government.

In his speech, Obama called Syrian President Bashar al-Assad a tyrant who dropped barrel bombs on children, but the attacks in East Ghouta on August 2013 shortly afterwards turned out to be a false flag operation, with no shred of evidence against Syrian government forces. Indeed, it was to serve as pretext for another U.S. humanitarian invasion, but Russian warships were promptly deployed off the Syrian coast. Obama said that a terrorist group beheads captives, slaughters the innocent, and enslaves women. Those are the moderate rebels that his administration funded, the CIA trained, and its counterparts in the Mideast facilitated the rise, in order to create a strategic asset to use for regime change in Syria. Assad is fighting against them.

[dropcap]O[/dropcap]bama purported to remind us how the Syrian mess began: “Assad reacted to peaceful protests by escalating repression and killing that, in turn, created the environment for the current strife.” Before 2011, Syria was the only country in the Mideast with no domestic conflicts. Assad had, and still has, the support of the overwhelming majority of the population. The Syrian fake revolution began with attacks during pro-government rallies perpetrated by armed groups against demonstrators and police – the same plot as in Libya and Ukraine. Operations were masterminded by Western Intelligence services and triggered a civil war waged by the U.S., Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey, and Israel. The truth is Syria is the only Mediterranean country with a state oil company and the only Arab country not indebted to IMF. Here’s what created the environment for a strife.

Obama image celebrating his putative “peacemaking” talents. You can’t get more ludicrous than that.

…
[dropcap]A[/dropcap] truly frightening thing Obama said was, “We know that ISIL depends on perpetual war to survive.” Truly scary for those whose bubble has burst indeed, since they know that after WW2 in the U.S. even Defense Industry merged with Corporatism – a Corporate Defense to profit from war.

…
Likewise he referred to Gaddafi, without naming him, as a tyrant. Gaddafi’s 40-year long rule turned Libya into the richest African country, which provided its citizens free healthcare, free education including University, free electricity, no interest loans, exceptional welfare state, and much more. In addition to this, Gaddafi was engaged in a project of de-dollarization in African natural resources trade, and the creation of an African bank system to free the continent from the clutches of Western corporations. A good reason to make a tyrant out of him.

…
Amazingly, Obama claimed the military intervention prevented a slaughter. Actually, it’s estimated that 30,000 Libyans were killed by NATO and its rebels.

Gaddafi was murdered like a victim of a mafia hit, which he was.

[dropcap]T[/dropcap]hen he recalled Russia’s annexation of Crimea, pointing out Russian aggression in eastern Ukraine. Even Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of Ukraine General Viktor Muzhenko stated they have no evidence of Russian troops on Ukrainian soil. French Intelligence and the OSCE observers claimed the same. German Authorities revealed that the ‘Russian invasion’ issue was an invention of U.S. mainstream media. Yet still some idiots yack about it – the Stooge-in-Chief along with them. Why does a referendum stir up plenty of bile to Obama? Were the Crimeans to use firebombs and batons, like the neo-Nazis in Kiev, to please him?

…
He went on to state that the U.S. has few economic interests in Ukraine. Possibly it’s unknown to him that Hunter Biden, the cocaine addict son of U.S. VP Joe Biden, is on the board of directors of a company engaged in partnership with Shell in fracking (Hydraulic Fracturing) in East Ukraine, aka Donbass? A 50-year production sharing deal between Shell and Ukraine was signed on January 2013. It’s worth $10 billion and is the largest foreign direct investment ever for Ukraine. Then, why did Senator Insane McCain and other U.S. and EU officials cheer up anti-government protesters in Kiev? By the way, none of them appealed to the mob to eschew violence. And why did Deputy Secretary of State V. Nuland discuss with U.S. Ambassador G. Pyatt who should or shouldn’t be in the next Ukrainian government? And most of all, why did puppet-president Poroshenko – a CIA insider in Ukraine since 2006 – sign the law on Ukraine’s abandonment of its non-aligned policy?

…
The Stooge said, “Imagine if Russia had engaged in true diplomacy.” Let’s say, ‘Imagine if Russia had deployed some hundreds bases in Mexico, Canada, and all over the Caribbean.’

…
He praised the Trans-Pacific Partnership, an agreement that will open markets, while protecting the rights of workers. Of course, a deal comparable to a gift to workers is way better to be negotiated in secrecy.

…
He blathered on about a nation of immigrants, international law, Ebola, future generations, free media. Free media in a country where six corporations control 90% of the media – is a Corporate State! His administration has been brutal in targeting whistleblowers, guilty of leaking real information to the press. A Pentagon document, the Law of War Manual, states that journalists may be treated like ‘unprivileged belligerents’, and allows the military to detain and question them. World Press Freedom Index ranked the U.S. at 49^th place, lower than several African and South American countries. Obama said, “You can jail your opponents, but you can’t imprison ideas.” He should have said, “I can detain indefinitely without trial, as well as torture, and kill whomever I please within the U.S. and abroad.”

…
And again, “You can try to control access to information, but you cannot turn a lie into truth.” Meanwhile his administration paid for CNN content to run propaganda. Trumped-up stories were to look like news and adverse ones were to be deleted – it was the Amber Lyon Show!

…
He mentioned social media, but not to say that Facebook and Google, along with U.S. spy agencies, are part of Big Brother, which intercepts all data communication of Americans and the colonized Europeans – including Merkel and Hollande.

…
Then, he rejected the wall to keep out migrants in Hungary – but the one built by Israelis is cool, right? According to him, for 50 years the U.S. pursued a Cuba policy that failed to improve the lives of the Cubans. Improving lives by imposing an embargo, I wonder? What an idea! Let’s say the U.S. are increasingly isolated in Latin America, losing ground in favor of Russia, and this compelled him to end hostile policies. And again he said, “We can be patriotic without demonizing someone else.” So, were those compliments, when addressing Assad, Putin, Gaddafi? Lately, wasn’t he saying even Venezuela has turned into a threat to American security? Wasn’t a Chinese aggression undergoing in the South China Sea? After having violated the Constitution in any possible way, he dared to cite George Washington! And more minor gibberish, unsubstantiated claims likely ridiculous even to the debt-bloated penpusher who wrote that filth on his behalf.

…
Obama’s speech included just a couple of sentences not to be labeled as pitiful lies. It was about Iran: “The Iranian people have a proud history, and are filled with extraordinary potential. But chantingDeath to America does not create jobs, or make Iran more secure.”

…
True. Neither do sanctions create jobs. Nor does surrounding Iran with U.S. military bases make it secure. By the way, how many jobs were created by chanting Death to Gaddafi? And has that made Libya more secure? Iran has never owned nukes. Sanctions were imposed against them to harm a competitor rich in resources and noncompliant with a U.S.-vetted government in office, and they were lifted because circumstances were changing to its benefit: with or without their removal, Russia, China, and even the EU were to re-engage Iran.

…
Drawing to a close, Obama found a way to insert a veiled threat: “Catastrophes, like what we are seeing in Syria, do not take place in countries where there is genuine democracy and respect for the universal values this institution is supposed to defend.”

…
It means any country whose government from the Western point of view is not deemed democratic, aka neoliberal/pro-U.S., runs the risk of facing violent uprisings and a raise of terrorist formations aiming at overthrowing the government in office. It’s the export of colored revolutions, a destabilize/invade/plunder program sponsored by the U.S. State Department.

…
By the end of a self-complacent, damning, lengthy performance, the message handed over was: all in all, the Good Guys have done a good job, and American exceptionalism is here to stay.

…

‘We can no longer tolerate the current state of affairs in the world.’

…

About half an hour had passed when these words bashed that very audience in a fraught silence. Russian President Vladimir Putin put matters straight in 23 minutes and nailed whomever it may concern to their responsibilities without having to mention them once.

…
Policies perpetrated by a sole center of dominance, based on conviction in its exceptionalism and impunity, may lead to the collapse of international relations, and give rise to a world ruled by selfishness rather than collective effort, by dictate rather than equality and liberty, with protectorates controlled from outside rather than independent states.

Putin finally got tired of seeking an amicable understanding with the imperialist West. He has begun to remember that the best defense —and the ONLY thing that unregenerate bullies respect, is offense.

Putin finally got tired of seeking an amicable accommodation with the imperialist West. He has begun to remember that the best defense —and the ONLY thing that unregenerate bullies respect, is offense. China is reaching the same conclusion.

…
No nation should be forced to conform to a single development model that somebody has declared the right one. Still, some prefer to export so-called “democratic” revolutions. In the Mideast and North Africa, the unleashed violence has destroyed government institutions and local lifestyle, bringing about poverty, social disaster, and total disregard for human rights, including the right to life.

…

‘I’m urged to ask those who created this situation: do you at least realize now what you’ve done?’

…

Vacuums of power resulted in the emergence of areas of anarchy, quickly filled with extremists and terrorists. Members of the so-called ‘moderate’ Syrian opposition get arms and training by the West, then defect to the Islamic State, which does not come from nowhere, for it was initially developed as a weapon against undesirable secular regimes. It’s hypocritical and irresponsible to warn against the threat of terrorism and then turn a blind eye to its funding channels.

…
Stop playing games with terrorists to achieve political goals. Create a broad anti-terrorism coalition based on UN Charter. Fix the Mideast to fix the refugee crisis. Restore statehood in Libya, strengthen government institutions in Iraq, provide comprehensive assistance to the legitimate government of Syria – President Assad’s troops along with Kurdish militia are the only forces truly fighting terrorists in Syria. Any assistance to sovereign nations is to be offered rather than imposed, in strict compliance with the UN Charter.

…
It’s been NATO expansionism to Post-Soviet countries to spark off a major geo-political crisis in Ukraine. Sole way out of the dead end is full implementation of the Minsk agreement. No integrity can be ensured by threats or military force, and the rights and choices of Donbass citizens must be respected. Unilaterally imposed sanctions circumventing the UN Charter serve political objectives and aim to eliminate market competition.

…
Trade rules are to be discussed within the framework of the United Nations, the WTO, and the G20, not rewritten behind closed doors to accommodate the interests of a privileged few.

…

Once the speech was over, it was clear who was in charge.

…
While Obama delivered the crude, deceptive propaganda to the assembly, Putin presented a stark foreign policy agenda, and eventually stood up as the man to take over and put an end to chaos. Putin has faced terrorism all his political career long. He fixed Dagestan. He fixed Chechnya. He fixed South-Ossetia. He’s got skills to fix Syria and Iraq as well.

…
When he rose to power, Russia was falling apart after the disastrous policies of the soaked-puppet Yeltsin, with no real budget, rampant inflation, low foreign exchange reserve, high crime rate and unemployment, public asset looted by foreign companies and crook oligarchs, and deeply indebted. Fifteen years after, Putin has re-built the country into a superpower reasserting its stance on the global political chessboard, leading major trade partnerships and an impressive military. This makes him a Statesman.

* Published by The Voice of Idaho on 7^th of October 2015

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.

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?

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

Obama’s outrageous snub to the Russian people

BRYAN MacDONALD

[dropcap]B[/dropcap]arack Obama’s decision to play political games with the 70th anniversary of Victory Day was probably intended as a snub to Vladimir Putin. However, it’s actually an outrageous insult to the Russian people.

I remember my first Russian May 9th very well. For the simple reason that following a rather raucous Saturday night, I plain forgot about it. Waking up slightly the worst for wear, I took Kris Kristofferson’s advice and flung on my “cleanest, dirty shirt” before heading to downtown Khabarovsk on that Sunday morning sidewalk. The problem was that the otherwise innocent garment was something I’d picked up at World Cup 2006 in Berlin. Emblazoned across the front were the words, “Deutschland” and on the rear “Germany” for those who had initially missed the point.

Dozily trotting down the Far Eastern capital’s wide central thoroughfare, Karl Marx Street, I noticed a few strange looks alright. By the time I passed the viewing platform at Lenin Square, my paranoia levels had peaked as people kept smiling at me, a very un-Russian trait. Eventually, I reached the Steakhouse where I’d arranged to meet my friend Vova and his buddy Max. Seeing my attire, they both laughed so hard that they doubled over.

“Oh my god! Is there a shop open, I need to buy a new T-Shirt,” I nervously said.

“No, you don’t. It’s just funny. You are not doing anything wrong,” Vova replied.

“Are you sure? I won’t get attacked by Russian nationalists or anything?”

“Not unless you put über alles after the Deutschland!”

In my homeland, St Patrick’s Day is a very big deal. The Irish have a love/hate attitude to it and many resent its association with heavy drinking. However, it remains our national holiday and despite the odd cringe, we are proud of its global appeal. To be honest, I’m not sure how safe it would be to wear an England soccer shirt in Dublin or a provincial Irish city on March 17. For what it’s worth, I wouldn’t personally be inclined to volunteer as a guinea pig either.

Russians respect Germany

The point here is that Russians, despite the horrors of the “Great Patriotic War,” as its known there, don’t hate Germans. In actual fact, they quite like them. I can only give my personal experience, but I find that when you ask Russians which foreign country they most admire, a few will plump for the USA, a couple more for Japan or France but the majority will say Germany. Back home, I’d have to travel a long way before I’d find an Irishman who would admit to reverence for England.

Angela Merkel knows this too. She also understands how much “Victory Day” means to Russians. For that reason, despite humungous pressure from the US, which effectively colonizes her nation militarily, she will visit Moscow this weekend to commemorate the dead. The Chancellor is skipping the army parade on the 9th and instead will lay a wreath at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier with President Putin the following day. Of course, a lot of Russians feel she should appear at both events. Indeed, one Vadim Raskin, a doctor from Novokuznetsk, organized a campaign which saw thousands write to her Berlin address expressing dismay.

While Merkel feels that the blowback from the Ukraine crisis means she can’t attend the military display, she’s at least acknowledging Russia’s gigantic war sacrifice. Smaller NATO members, Greece and the Czech Republic, are sending their heads of state and Slovakia will be represented by its Prime Minister, Robert Fico. Many in Moscow, including President Putin, accuse the US of coercing other European states not to send delegations. (And they are right.—Eds)

However, while Europe cowers under American duress, the leaders of China, India, Brazil and South Africa will be present in Moscow. What should have been a day for solemn commemoration of humanity’s most tragic waste of life, has been turned into an interstate ‘brannigan’, worthy of a putative new Cold War. The man responsible for this is Barack Obama. It’s less the “audacity of hope” and more the timidity of doltishness.

Obama’s own goal

Like an Englishman taking a penalty at a World Cup, Obama has snatched defeat from the jaws of victory and handed his great rival, Vladimir Putin, the moral high ground. Let me explain why the White House’s petty snub is a major strategic blunder and also an error of principle.

What most European and North American commentators don’t fully understand is just how all-consuming memories of the “Great Patriotic War” are for Russians. Defeating German fascism and repelling the Nazi invasion is regarded as their finest hour as a people. Some in the West may perceive Yuri Gagarin’s first space flight as the crowning glory, but the natives don’t. There’s a simple reason for this, almost every Russian either has a living or dead relative who fought in the conflict. On the other hand, not many Russians can boast of a family member who has been to outer space.

1941-1945; wartime photo; World War two; seizure of Berlin. (RIA Novosti)

The UK and the USA also lean heavily on the memory of World War Two, the latter aided by Hollywood which often re-writes the accepted history. While both made huge contributions to the war effort, even the most myopic would not dare suggest that either’s suffering was comparable to what the USSR endured. Total Soviet deaths numbered around 27 million.

By comparison, Britain lost 450,000 and the USA 420,000. The main aggressor, Germany, counted around six million casualties. In 2004, Russian historian Vadim Erlikhman estimated that around 14 million of the Soviet fallen were from Russia with other massive losses sustained by Ukraine (6.8 million) and Belarus (2.3 million). The central Asian countries, former Soviet republics of Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan suffered greater loss of life than the UK or USA. Poland was also a victim of the war. In 1987, Dachau survivor Franciszek Proch concluded that 3.3 million ethnic Polish and 2.5 million Polish Jews died.

Obama – hope we can’t believe in

For Barack Obama to use the specter of a civil war in a failed, corrupt state on the edge of Europe as an excuse to water the graves of Russia’s war dead is an absurdity. Especially after his own representatives promoted the violent coup – against a freely elected government – which created the conditions for the conflict.

“A man who likes to preach about democracy and freedom should surely realize that those values he, outwardly, holds dear survive in part because of the Russian and Soviet sacrifice 70 years ago…”

A man who likes to preach about democracy and freedom should surely realize that those values he, outwardly, holds dear survive in part because of the Russian and Soviet sacrifice 70 years ago. I actually suspect he doesn’t acknowledge this. US policy towards Moscow is so harebrained that one would venture that a team of monkeys, armed with ‘ogham’ stones, would do a better job than the State Department’s current Russia team.

A country that celebrates its own national holidays with such fervor as the Americans exhibit on Thanksgiving and the 4th of July should be aware of how other nations feel about theirs. That said, Victory Day is more than a regular national holiday. It’s living, breathing history.

This 70th anniversary is probably the last major milestone that a significant number of veterans will be able to attend. The fact that Barack Obama was unable to find it in his heart to come to Moscow and doff his cap to men and women who did more for the values he purports to hold dear than he ever will, speaks volumes about his character. The worst American President since Jimmy Carter has not only destroyed relations between the White House and the Kremlin, he may also have obliterated any residual goodwill that still existed from the ordinary Russian people towards America. That’s a poisonous legacy.

Bryan MacDonald is an Irish writer and commentator focusing on Russia and its hinterlands and international geo-politics. Follow him on Facebook

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.

[printfriendly]

What is $5 a month to support one of the greatest publications on the Left?

Did Obama just declare war on Syria?

Eric Draitser

[dropcap]T[/dropcap]he news that President Obama has formally asked US Congress to authorize military force against ISIS is not surprising. What may come as a shock to Americans oblivious to these developments is that the administration has de facto declared war on Syria.

On Wednesday, President Barack Obama presented the US Congress with a draft resolution authorizing the use of military force.Liberal pundits have lauded the Obama administration for observing the Constitutional requirement for congressional approval of military action, while many conservatives have predictably pilloried the administration for presenting a “weak” and “flawed” strategy that will be doomed to failure. However both these lines of argument are, in fact, distractions from the far bigger, far more dangerous, and far more criminal action being taken by the White House: an aggressive war against Syria, a sovereign nation.

Distorting the reality of US aggression

While the corporate media is framing the request for authorization as being limited in scope, there are key clauses that should worry anyone interested in peace and stability in Syria, and the Middle East generally.Naturally, after a series of aggressive wars waged by the US (Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, etc.), many Americans are understandably skeptical of yet another open-ended conflict that will cost American lives, not to mention billions of dollars (note that the countless innocent civilians who will be killed as a result of US operations are almost never mentioned as they are not deemed noteworthy by policymakers or the media).

A careful examination of some key provisions of the president’s proposal reveals that, contrary to the rhetoric, this is in fact a declaration of war on Syria. The internationally, and legally, recognized government of Syria, led by Bashar al-Assad, has provided no such authorization, nor have they been consulted, let alone asked for consent, in the US decision. Therefore, any US military action occurring within Syria’s borders would unquestionably be a violation of international law.

According to the NY Times, Obama’s proposal “would prohibit the use of ‘enduring offensive ground forces’ and limit engagement to three years.” The understandable reaction from a casual reader would be that Obama is trying to avoid any kind of real war, and is instead just looking to engage in limited combat operations against a specific threat. However, that is simply not true for, were one to continue reading the NY Times article, one would find the following:

The resolution also requests authority to wage battle beyond the fight against the Islamic State to include “associated forces.” It would contain no geographic limitations… The omission of any language setting geographic boundaries appeared to anticipate the possibility of attacking the group should it gain a foothold in Lebanon or Jordan, which has fought off sporadic attacks from Islamic State fighters. It could also be used to address future threats from small bands of violent Islamist militants in Libya, Yemen and other Middle Eastern and North African countries that have “rebranded” their identities to take the Islamic State name, and benefit from its notoriety, American officials said.

So this resolution being touted as “limited” and “short-term” is anything but. Rather than cautiously authorizing very specific action, it instead provides Washington carte blanche to engage in a full-scale regional war that could include a number of countries in the region. The transnational character of the Islamic State virtually guarantees such an outcome. However, while Lebanon, Jordan, Libya, and Yemen are explicitly named in the Times article, the real target here is Syria – the only country that has actually been fighting (and winning) a war against IS.

In a recent interview with the BBC, Syrian President Assad responded to a question as to the possibility of his country cooperating with the United States by stating, “No, definitely we cannot and we don’t have the will and we don’t want, for one simple reason — because we cannot be in an alliance with countries which support terrorism.” A more clear rejection of US military action in Syria could not possibly be given.

And so, international observers are left with a central question: when the US inevitably violates Syrian sovereignty in this new phase of the war (they’ve been doing this for months already), will there be an outcry from those who still cling to the seemingly outdated notion of international law? Will there be any leaders who remind Washington and the world that there are clear and unmistakable precedents in international law which define this move as “aggressive”?

Who will stand up and defend the decision of the International Law Commission in 1951 which, after being tasked by the UN to develop a definition of aggression, ultimately decided that: “Aggression is the use of force by a State or Government against another State or Government, in any manner, whatever the weapons used and whether openly or otherwise, for any reason or for any purpose other than individual or collective self-defense or in pursuance of a decision or recommendation by a competent organ of the United Nations”?

Syria, a sovereign state currently at war against multiple external enemies that have infiltrated the country with the covert support of international actors, is now subject to invasion, bombardment, and other forms of aggression by the United States without ever having even threatened to attack the US, its allies, or its interests.

Naturally, the Obama administration would claim that IS beheadings and killings are ample justification for launching an aggressive war. However, no ethical observer or legal scholar would argue that these incidents, which pale in comparison to many other horrific crimes all over the world that the US has conveniently ignored, justify a war of aggression. For, as the International Military Tribunal at Nuremburg unequivocally stated in 1946, “To initiate a war of aggression is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime, differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.”

Taking this as the precedent, is there any doubt as to the illegality of what President Obama is proposing?

Questions for President Obama

Yet again the drumbeat of war becomes audible. Yet again Americans can rest assured that their elected officials and corporate media mouthpieces will do everything but ask incisive questions that challenge the militarist consensus that exists in Washington. And so, it falls upon those outside of the corporate mainstream to ask such questions, to challenge the false narrative, and to cut through the rhetoric and obfuscation of the bipartisan warmongers. And it is in this spirit of truth-telling, to say nothing of morality and justice, that I submit the following questions to President Obama:

1. Your proposed resolution explicitly prohibits “enduring offensive ground forces” being utilized in this so-called war against IS. Can you clearly and specifically explain what the word “enduring” actually means, and more to the point, how offensive ground forces differ from other ground forces? Put another way, what will stop you or your successor from simply waging offensive campaigns under the moniker of “defensive” campaigns? We’ve seen countless times before, both with President Bush and your administration, the shift in terminology that is in fact no change in actual tactics or policy. So, with that in mind, will you or your successor be guilty of violating this authorization by engaging in such deliberately misleading policies?

Obama asks Congress for permission to strike ISIS anywhere in world (RT.com)

2. This resolution grants you the authority to fight not only IS, but also so called “associated forces.” What or who exactly are the associated forces? Does this include the al-Qaeda affiliated al Nusra Front which has been documented as collaborating with Israel? Does this make Israel an “associated force” considering that they are in league with a known al-Qaeda group?

What about the so called “moderate rebels” which your administration has so ardently supported? Thousands upon thousands of these fighters have defected to IS, bringing their US weapons and training with them. Are you now suggesting that US military will be fighting against the forces that our own government has armed? Will anyone in the CIA or any other agency be held accountable for having provided the weapons and training that are now being employed by “the enemy”?

3. You’ve declared that a time limit of three years must be placed on US military operations against IS. However there seems to be no clear objective other than the abstract and intangible goal of “defeating ISIS.” Considering that the Islamic State is a transnational fighting force with a vast network of resources, allied factions, and regions under its control, how is it possible to defeat such a force without a full scale regional war far larger than the criminal war against Iraq by your predecessor? Isn’t it true that you’re simply waging yet another unwinnable war, to say nothing of it being an overtly criminal war?

Are you prepared to be morally and legally responsible for the costs of this war, both in lives and resources? And what happens when the three year time limit has expired and IS still exists, as this is undeniably going to be the result? Will you be prepared to have your war and your policy deemed a failure, just as Bush’s have been?

4. Considering the fact that this resolution will grant you the authority to wage war inside Syria without the consent of the Syrian government, are you prepared to wage war against Damascus if it defends its people from your bombs? As a legal scholar who has focused on international law, you’re undoubtedly aware of the inviolable right of self-defense as enumerated in Chapter VII, Article 51 of the UN Charter which states that “Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of collective or individual self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a member of the United Nations.” And so, the Syrian government will be well within its legal rights to defend with military force against US aggression, be it from ground forces, aerial bombardment, etc. What will you do in the event that this happens?Will you compound your grave breach of international law with yet another “supreme crime”?

5. You claim to be conscientious when it comes to international law, and yet you have already violated it countless times, long before the words “Islamic State” were on your lips. You refused to get a UN Security Council resolution authorizing war in Libya, and instead distorted the meaning of Resolution 1973 which authorized a No-Fly Zone over Libya, transforming it into a de facto declaration of war.Similarly, you’ve waged secret wars in Yemen, Somalia, Pakistan, and Mali and all over the world. Honestly, why should anyone trust you, or any of the “guarantees” and “limits” that will purportedly guide the military action?

Your administration has fomented the civil war in Ukraine, and its policies have brought the US and Russia into direct confrontation for the first time since the Cold War. Your war on Libya has created a failed state and hotbed for terrorism where there was none before.Your drone war in Pakistan has achieved nothing but needless civilian deaths and created endless fodder for new terrorist recruitment. Your secret drone war in Yemen has been a failure, and is one of the principal reasons for the fall of the puppet government that your administration put in place during your first term.Your policy in Somalia has achieved little more than more innocent Somalis being killed, to say nothing of the criminal policy that led directly to deaths of at least 250,000 Somalis from starvation.

Considering all of these wars that you are directly responsible for, how can the American people, let alone the people of Iraq, Syria, and the region broadly, trust anything you say? Considering all of the above wars, and the new regional war you have planned, how can you still claim to be a worthy recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize? Shouldn’t you consider returning it?

And finally, Mr. President…are you prepared to be remembered for having started yet another endless war? Are you prepared for the irreparable damage that this will cause to your own legacy? Are you prepared for the inevitable blowback of these policies? Moreover, will you take responsibility for it now, and in the future?

Mr. President, I await your response.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Eric Draitser is an independent geopolitical analyst based in New York City and the founder of StopImperialism.com.

What is $1 a month to support one of the greatest publications on the Left?

America tuned out as Congress bangs war drum against Russia

U.S. President Barack Obama (RIA Novosti / Sergey Guneev)

Russia-NATO relations

Robert Bridge

[dropcap]On December 4[/dropcap] as America was tuned into Thursday night football, or staring into the cold depths of the refrigerator at commercial time, House members brought the nation one step closer to all-out war with Russia.

Future historians – that is, assuming there are humans still around to contemplate history – may one day point to House Resolution 758 (a full critique of this vile act of Congress is included in our Appendix, written by none other than a card-carrying Libertarian, and originally published on LewRockewell.com) as the single piece of legislation that sparked a global conflagration between two leading nuclear powers.

This is not hyperbole. US rhetoric against Russia is quickly overstepping reality, causing US politicians to endorse policies that severely inflate the perceived threat. When political veteran Ron Paul says the House passed what he ranked as “one of the worst pieces of legislation ever,” well, we had better sit up and switch off CNN, especially when that legislation happens to involve a historical heavyweight like Russia.

Resolution 758 was forged in a political furnace of unbalanced, one-sided debate, where American politicians regularly attempt to outdo each other in a lame contest called ‘Russian fear mongering.’ This popular game, which is never out of season, is played among intellectually challenged officials looking for quick political advantage; a bit like Special Olympics for American politicians where everybody goes home a winner.

However, these Russian games are no longer a laughing matter as they were during the feel-good Yeltsin era. Vladimir Putin has shown himself to be a highly competent statesman and whether this fact is responsible for America’s bad mood is difficult to say. Whatever the case may be, judging by the wording of HR 758, America seems to be sliding inexorably towards a ‘war footing’ with Russia.

The opening paragraph of HR 758 accuses Russia of conducting an “invasion of Ukraine” and violating its territorial sovereignty. Like so much else in this resolution, the statement is delivered into American living rooms like a dry, cold pizza without the toppings. Yet nobody, except Ron Paul and a few others, seems to be complaining.

President Obama Delivers State Of The Union Address At U.S. Capitol

A joint session of Congress in the House Chamber at the U.S. Capitol (Mark Wilson/Getty Images/AFP)

“Surely with our sophisticated satellites that can read a license plate from space we should have video and pictures of this Russian invasion,” Paul argued. “None have been offered. As to Russia’s ‘violation of Ukrainian sovereignty,’ why isn’t it a violation of Ukraine’s sovereignty for the US to participate in the overthrow of that country’s elected government as it did in February?”

Indeed, as Ukraine was approaching open rebellion, US Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland and the US Ambassador to Ukraine were overheard in taped conversations bragging that the US spent $5 billion on regime change in Ukraine. They even mentioned the names of the individuals the US wants to see in leadership positions, and while we’re at it: ‘F*ck the EU!’

Paragraph 13 of the document demands the “withdrawal of Russia forces from Ukraine” even though not a shred of evidence has been produced to prove that the Russian army ever set foot in Ukraine. Further on, HR 758 urges Kiev to resume military operations against the eastern regions seeking independence, a move that will certainly exasperate East-West relations if it goes forward.

Paragraph 14 states that Malaysia Airlines flight 17, which went down in murky circumstances in eastern Ukraine, was brought down by a missile “fired by Russian-backed separatist forces in eastern Ukraine.”

How can the House make such a reckless conclusion when the final report on the investigation of this tragedy is not scheduled to be released until next year? Moreover, the preliminary report never says that a missile was responsible for bringing down MH17.

Paragraph 22 states that Russia invaded the Republic of Georgia in 2008. This is a blatant misrepresentation of the historical record since it is well known that Georgian forces launched a crack-of-dawn military offensive against South Ossetia, killing hundreds of civilians, as well as a dozen Russian peacekeepers. Yes, Russia chased the Georgian army back to the outskirts of Tbilisi before turning back, but what country would have done differently under similar circumstances?

A woman stands by her smoldering home in the Lidievka district, after it was hit and destroyed by shelling in the eastern Ukrainian city of Donetsk on December 6, 2014. (AFP Photo/Eric Feferberg)

HR 758 also calls on Russia “to reverse its illegal annexation of the Crimean peninsula, to end its support of the separatist forces in Crimea, and to remove its military forces from that region other than those operating in strict accordance with its 1997 agreement on the Status and Conditions of the Black Sea Fleet Stationing on the Territory of Ukraine.”

This statement represents the falsification of history in an effort to pursue a political agenda. The people of the Crimean peninsula, under the threat of violence from government forces, independently called for a referendum to decide their sovereign status. Only after Crimea voted – overwhelmingly – to join the Russian Federation did the Russian Duma hold a vote on the issue. The entire process was done according to the dictates of international law.

There are many more such preposterous claims and dangerous demands in HR 758, yet the document has been greeted with a deafening silence in the United States by the corporate-owned media.

“Global security is at stake,” writes Michel Chossudovsky in Veteran News. “This historic vote – which potentially could affect the lives of hundreds of millions of people worldwide– has received virtually no media coverage. A total media blackout prevails.”

PLEASE EXAMINE THE APPENDIX FOR THE ROLL CALL VOTE on H R 758 and identify the criminals and traitors (Democrats voting with the GOP, and proving the “alternative” party is no such thing in anything of importance) that passed this vile piece of legislation.

REGULAR ARTICLE RESUMES HERE

It is the opinion here that the recent upsurge in anti-Russian rhetoric, which is quickly transforming into concrete actions, is not a new phenomenon. Despite the collapse of the Soviet Union, the United States never really shook off its cold war hangover, and moreover, never really wanted to.

A holier-than-thou attitude has permeated the great majority of US think-tank papers over the years, creating a palpable sense of fear towards Russia while sowing the seeds for immense defense sector profits. Newspaper articles since the time of Boris Yeltsin have dripped with condescending, disparaging remarks about Russia, which have worked to create a particular mindset in many Americans towards a country they have most likely never experienced firsthand.

Meanwhile, inside the world of America’s hermetically sealed cauldron of ‘academic Russian studies’ (READ: Sovietology) – a veritable echo chamber where anti-Russian mantras are recited like unthinking prayers – an atmosphere of hostility against Russia has been carefully cultivated for years. There are only a handful of honest US academicians as far as Russia is concerned.

Sevastopol residents at a celebratory show held after the referendum on Crimea’s status. (RIA Novosti/Valeriy Melnikov)

Given this overtly hostile attitude towards all things Russian, it was quite easy for the United States to sell the idea of a dangerous enemy “on the doorstep of NATO” that has some kind of wild desire to recreate an empire.

Yet what country has been steadily encroaching on Russia’s doorstep like a wolf in sheep’s clothing since the end of the Cold War? What country has refused to cooperate with Russia in its missile defense shield in Eastern Europe, thus bringing the continent to the brink of another arms race? What country has over 800 military franchises spanning the globe, yet accuses Russia of yearning for empire? What country has launched military offensives against seven countries in the last six years, yet calls Russia an “aggressive state” because it dares defends itself when attacked by a foreign power? What country has been playing geopolitical games in Ukraine since the collapse of the Soviet Union – even sending high-ranking political figures into central Kiev to spew venomous rhetoric against Russia when it appeared that Ukraine was going to join an economic bloc with Russia, as opposed to the EU?

Before the US Senate votes on HR758, it should ask itself these simple questions, otherwise it risks stirring up a hornet’s nest of problems the world does not need.

Robert Bridge has worked as a journalist in Russia since 1998. Formerly the editor-in-chief of The Moscow News, Bridge is the author of the book, Midnight in the American Empire, which discusses the dangerous consequences of extreme corporate power in the United States.

House Resolution 758: A Work of Fiction

By Michael S. Rozeff | December 9, 2014

[dropcap]T[/dropcap]he U.S. government is a bastion of reckless behavior, constantly and continually. The extent of damage inflicted upon the American people by U.S. governments is huge and incalculable. The latest addition to its record of recklessness is H.R. 758. This resolution passed the House with 95 percent of the House voting “yea”. The vote was 411 to 10 with 13 not voting.

The text of H.R. 758, passed by the U.S. House of Representatives on Dec. 4, 2014, is here. This resolution is directed against Russia. All quotes below are from H.R. 758.

“H.Res.758 – Strongly condemning the actions of the Russian Federation, under President Vladimir Putin, which has carried out a policy of aggression against neighboring countries aimed at political and economic domination.”

H.R. 758 condemns Russia unjustly, unilaterally, without justification, without evidence, and while ignoring Russia’s actual intentions and actions.

H.R. 758 makes false charges against Russia. False accusations obscure facts and realities. This can only lead to harmful decisions. Basing national policies on fictions can only cause problems and hurt Americans.

H.R. 758 gains nothing for Americans by fabricating false charges against Russia. To the contrary, there is much to be lost by placing America on a collision course with Russia. There is much to be lost for Americans, Russians, and other peoples of the world by isolating Russia and starting a new Cold War.

H.R. 758 makes various calls for action “with the goal of compelling it [Russia]…” These acts, that include “visa bans, targeted asset freezes, sectoral sanctions, and other measures on the Russian Federation and its leadership” are hostile and aggressive.

H.R. 758’s attempt to compel Russia raises the distinct possibility of subsequent further economic, political and military steps that confront Russia and raise the likelihood of war, even nuclear war. These prospects are not counterbalanced by any gains to Americans from compelling Russia.

H.R. 758 demeans Russia. It is scandalously derogatory. It accuses Russia. It places Russia in a docket made by the U.S. It judges Russia. It makes the U.S. government the judge and jury of Russia.

H.R. 758 makes demands of Russia. It demands unrealistic capitulation. It places the U.S. in opposition to Russia when there is nothing to be gained by such opposition and peace is to be lost.

H.R. 758 calls for military actions. It spurns diplomacy.

H.R. 758 is aggressive in tone and nature, needlessly and without right.

H.R. 758 intrudes the U.S. into areas of the world where the U.S. doesn’t belong and has no right being. It intrudes the U.S. government into areas where it has no genuine interest on behalf of the American people.

H.R. 758 is fiction purporting to be fact. As fact, it’s mostly garbage, and harmful, dangerous garbage at that.

H.R. 758 is an extended exercise in baseless Congressional propaganda that teaches the American people false beliefs that can only generate hatred, suspicion and hostility. These strengthen the hand of the American warmongers and war party and obscure the voices for peace.

Although the situation in Ukraine and Russia’s role in it are none of Congress’s (or the House’s) business, measures like H.R. 758 will be used to justify further actions against Russia. For this reason, it’s useful to point out just a few of the many fictional narratives in this document.

What emerges after considering some of these allegations is that H.R. 758 has assembled a laundry list of charges against Russia in order to create the illusion of a substantial indictment. This is analogous to how American prosecutors trump up charges by issuing a stew such as assaulting a police officer, resisting arrest, trafficking, conspiracy to deliver controlled substances, conspiracy to resist arrest, unlawful use of a telephone, ad infinitum. This manner of proceeding is not surprising given the legal backgrounds of many Congressmen and members of their staffs.

FICTION: “…the Russian Federation has subjected Ukraine to a campaign of political, economic, and military aggression for the purpose of establishing its domination over the country and progressively erasing its independence.”

FACT: The Russian Federation did absolutely nothing to initiate Ukraine’s current set of troubles. It did not create a coup d’etat in Ukraine. To the contrary, the U.S. encouraged the coup. Russia never attacked Ukraine militarily with its armed forces. It never made an attempt to take over Ukraine. If it has, where is the evidence of such an invasion? Russia has never sought to erase the independence of Ukraine. To the contrary, it has again and again made efforts to bring peace to that country.

FICTION: “…Russian Federation’s forcible occupation and illegal annexation of Crimea…”

FACT: Russia didn’t forcibly occupy Crimea at any time. Russia never invaded Crimea. Actually, in response to the coup d’etat in Kiev, the Parliament of Crimea adopted a resolution calling for a referendum to secede from Ukraine and its illegitimate government. The referendum was put to the people and passed in a one-sided vote. This resulted in Crimea joining the Russian Federation as a sovereign state.

FICTION: “… the Russian Federation has provided military equipment, training, and other assistance to separatist and paramilitary forces in eastern Ukraine that has resulted in over 4,000 civilian deaths, hundreds of thousands of civilian refugees, and widespread destruction…”

FACT: Whatever assistance was or was not, it did not result in “over 4,000 civilian deaths, hundreds of thousands of civilian refugees, and widespread destruction…” as H.R. 758 says. This cannot be laid at the doorstep solely of either the secessionists or the Russian Federation. It is a consequence of the de-stabilization of Ukraine’s government that catalyzed secession movements and resulted in Ukraine’s going to war to maintain its territory.

FACT: As with Crimea, secessionary forces of eastern Ukraine immediately became active after the coup d’etat in Kiev on February, 25, 2014. (The Donetsk Republic organization actually appeared before the year 2007 when Ukraine banned it.) The coup resulted in activists taking control of municipal buildings and declaring the Federal State of Novorussiya on April 7, 2014. One week later, Ukraine’s interim government declared it would confront the secessionists militarily.

FACT: On May 16, 2014, Ukraine declared that the entire Donetsk People’s Republic, a component of the Federal State of Novorussiya, was a terrorist organization. Consequently, Ukraine sent its military forces against those of the eastern Ukraine secessionists. We know that to re-take territory, Ukraine prosecuted the war in Donbass by bombardments of civilian areas.

FACT: The available evidence on the war in Donbass shows complexity in the forces fighting on the secessionist side. The participation of Russians did occur. However, there is no documentation that has yet been provided by the U.S. of the extent and kinds of assistance by Russians and/or by the Russian Federation to the secessionist forces of the Federal State of Novorussiya.

FICTION: “…the terms of the cease-fire specified in the Minsk Protocol that was signed on September 5, 2014, by representatives of the Government of Ukraine, the Russian Federation, and the Russian-led separatists in the eastern area of Ukraine have been repeatedly violated by the Russian Federation and the separatist forces it supports…”

FACT: The cease-fire has been repeatedly violated by both the Government of Ukraine and separatists. They’ve been fighting over the Donetsk airport. Calling the separatists Russian-led is an attempt to make Russia the author of the secessionist movement, which it is not. Cease-fires often are respites in longer wars as each side arms and regroups. This cease-fire’s lapses, which are none of America’s business anyway, can’t be taken seriously, and certainly not as seriously as H.R. 758 purports to do.

FICTION: “Malaysia Airlines Flight 17, a civilian airliner, was destroyed by a missile fired by Russian-backed separatist forces in eastern Ukraine, resulting in the loss of 298 innocent lives…”

FACT: The causes of the destruction of this airliner have not been yet established. H.R. 758 treats allegations as if they were facts.

FICTION: “…the Russian Federation has used and is continuing to use coercive economic measures, including the manipulation of energy prices and supplies, as well as trade restrictions, to place political and economic pressure on Ukraine…”

FACT: The energy relations among Russia, Russian companies, Ukraine and oligarchs of both countries are complex and not easily understood. They are known to be opaque. There are all sorts of hypotheses about them, but little is actually known. The allegation made in H.R. 758 is unproven.

FICTION: “…the Russian Federation invaded the Republic of Georgia in August 2008…”

FACT: The breakup of the USSR has been followed by some instabilities on Russia’s periphery, especially where there are large Russian populations that come into conflict with other nearby peoples. This characterizes Ukraine and Georgia. In the latter case, Georgia had a breakaway region, South Ossetia. Georgia shelled this region, and that brought in the Russian military to protect the integrity of South Ossetia. A European Union report says that Russia didn’t simply invade Georgia on its own hook. It didn’t initiate an aggression. The attacks by Ukraine on Donbass are a similar case, except that Russia has notably notresponded to protect Novorussiya as it did South Ossetia. It has not introduced a concerted Russian attack.

FICTION: “…the Russian Federation continues to subject the Republic of Georgia to political and military intimidation, economic coercion, and other forms of aggression in an effort to establish its control of the country and to prevent Georgia from establishing closer relations with the European Union and the United States…”

FACT: This charge is sour grapes over the fact that Russia doesn’t want Georgia to join NATO and place missiles and armed forces on its doorstep. Georgia wants to join NATO, thinking that it affords it some protection against Russia.

If the Congress regards Russia’s pressures as “forms of aggression”, what then are its sanctions on Russia? Georgia is no more America’s business than is Ukraine. For the U.S. to condemn Russia over its actions on its periphery makes no more sense than for Russia to condemn the U.S. for its actions in Mexico or the Caribbean. When one major state begins to pressure another major state for its intrusions on smaller states, neither one can justify itself; and the result is often war between the two mastodons.

H.R. 758 is confrontational. It’s a jockeying for power at Russia’s boundaries and elsewhere. The problem with it is that as justification for confrontation it is so patently trumped up and false; and as part of a policy of U.S. expansion and influence, it is so foolish, so counter-productive and so dangerous.

H.R. 758 makes Ukraine into a U.S. ally. It calls for the restoration of Ukraine’s pre-coup borders. To accomplish this, it calls for the U.S. to supply arms, services and training to Ukraine: “…calls on the President to provide the Government of Ukraine with lethal and non-lethal defense articles, services, and training required to effectively defend its territory and sovereignty…”

This makes the U.S. a party to Ukraine’s war against Donbass and even Crimea.

The belief that motivates all of H.R. 758 is that Russia is expansionist and on the move, seeking to take over countries on its periphery. Washington sees Putin and Russia as a new Hitler and Germany. This is the basis of all the trumped up charges and fictions in this document. Washington is constructing a new Hitler for itself, even though the situation is totally different and even though the evidence points in very different directions. To this erroneous belief is added another erroneous idea, which is the notion that to do nothing is to appease Russia. And finally there is a third erroneous idea which is that it’s the mission of the U.S. to fight evil empires all over the world. So, since the U.S. government conceives itself as committed to fighting evil empires and it has found one in Putin’s Russia, it wants to join hands with Ukraine and enter the fight. Ukraine is seen as the new Sudetenland or Czechoslovakia or Austria.

What we have in Washington are people who have been so indoctrinated in an oversimplified history of the world American-style that they cannot see anything but those past situations today, when in fact the situations arising today are considerably different and call for very different responses.

Reality is far, far different than H.R. 758 suggests. Russia is not an aggressive state. Its moves are defensive. Putin has sought time and again to protect Russian populations on the periphery of the Russian Federation. This is merely housekeeping and tidying up after the dissolution of the USSR. Putin wants respect for Russia and a Russian sphere of influence. He wants ties with Europe, peaceful ties. Putin has not built Russia into a military machine of huge proportions. He has not attacked any country in an outright aggression. There is no evidence, in word or deed, that this is his intent.

NATO is an aggressive force, as shown in Serbia, Afghanistan and Libya. It is a tool of neo-colonialist European powers. NATO cannot be trusted. Russia’s defensiveness concerning NATO is entirely justified.

America is an aggressively expansionary force, with vast global ambitions, as shown by its attacks on Serbia, Afghanistan, Libya, and Iraq, as shown by its drone wars in other countries like Pakistan and Yemen, as shown by its forces in Somalia and its other commitments in Africa, and as shown by its Pacific pivot and evident antagonism toward Russia. Russia’s defensiveness concerning the U.S. is justified.

H.R. 758 reflects anachronistic thinking, but fighting enemies, real and imagined, has become an entrenched habit of American governments. Congress doesn’t want peace. It doesn’t want to exercise diplomacy. It doesn’t want to recognize a multipolar world and other major powers, not really. Congress wants a new and large outside enemy. Else, why would it be constructing one in the form of Putin and the Russian Federation?

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

APPENDIX

H RES 758 2/3 YEA-AND-NAY 4-Dec-2014 11:10 AM
QUESTION: On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree, as Amended
BILL TITLE: Strongly condemning the actions of the Russian Federation, under President Vladimir Putin, which has carried out a policy of aggression against neighboring countries aimed at political and economic domination

	YEAS	NAYS	PRES	NV
REPUBLICAN	222	5		6
DEMOCRATIC	189	5		7
INDEPENDENT
TOTALS	411	10		13

—- YEAS 411 —

Adams
Amodei
Bachmann
Bachus
Barber
Barletta
Barr
Barrow (GA)
Barton
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Benishek
Bentivolio
Bera (CA)
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Black
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Boustany
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Braley (IA)
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Broun (GA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Burgess
Bustos
Butterfield
Byrne
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Capito
Capps
Cárdenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Carter
Cartwright
Cassidy
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Chu
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clawson (FL)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coffman
Cohen
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Conaway
Connolly
Conyers
Cook
Costa
Cotton
Courtney
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Daines
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
Davis, Rodney
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Deutch
Diaz-Balart
Dingell
Doggett
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Edwards
Ellison
Ellmers
Engel
Enyart
Eshoo
Esty
Farenthold
Farr
Fattah
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foster
Foxx
Frankel (FL)
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Fudge
Gabbard
Garamendi
Garcia
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger

Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grijalva
Grimm
Guthrie
Gutiérrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Heck (NV)
Heck (WA)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Holding
Holt
Honda
Horsford
Hoyer
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huffman
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Israel
Issa
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Jenkins
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jolly
Jordan
Joyce
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kelly (PA)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kirkpatrick
Kline
Kuster
Labrador
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Langevin
Lankford
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
Latta
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren
Long
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Luján, Ben Ray (NM)
Lummis
Lynch
Maffei
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Marchant
Marino
Matheson
Matsui
McAllister
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCollum
McGovern
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Meehan
Meeks
Meng
Messer
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Moore
Moran
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (FL)
Murphy (PA)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Neugebauer
Noem
Nolan
Norcross
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Owens
Palazzo
Pallone
Pascrell

Pastor (AZ)
Paulsen
Payne
Pearce
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Perry
Peters (CA)
Peters (MI)
Peterson
Petri
Pingree (ME)
Pittenger
Pitts
Pocan
Poe (TX)
Polis
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Richmond
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruiz
Runyan
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Salmon
Sánchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanford
Sarbanes
Scalise
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schock
Schrader
Schwartz
Schweikert
Scott (VA)
Scott, Austin
Scott, David
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Southerland
Speier
Stewart
Stivers
Stockman
Stutzman
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tierney
Tipton
Titus
Tonko
Tsongas
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velázquez
Visclosky
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walorski
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Waxman
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Welch
Wenstrup
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (FL)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yarmuth
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IN)

—- NAYS 10 —

Amash
Duncan (TN)
Grayson
Hastings (FL)

Jones
Massie
McDermott
Miller, George

O’Rourke
Rohrabacher

—- NOT VOTING 13 —

Aderholt
Bishop (UT)
Capuano
Coble
Cooper

Doyle
Duckworth
Gallego
Hall
McCarthy (NY)

Meadows
Miller, Gary
Negrete McLeod

Other details, including a summary, may be found here.

If you took the time to read this article, and found it worth SHARING, then why not sign up with our special bulletin to be included in our future distributions?

YOUR SUBSCRIPTIONS (SIGNUPS TO THE GREANVILLE POST BULLETIN) ARE COMPLETELY FREE, ALWAYS. AND WE DO NOT SELL OR RENT OUR EMAIL ADDRESS DATABASES—EVER. That’s a guarantee.