Max Boot, promotor van de illegale oorlog tegen Irak is pissig dat Bernie Sanders kritiek levert op die oorlog

Als het om de VS gaat is niets te gek om je voorstellingsvermogen op de proef te stellen. Caitlin Johnstone bericht over Max Boot, een jammer genoeg invloedrijke 'neocon', die stelt dat hij heeft geleerd van de illegale oorlog van de VS tegen Irak, een oorlog die hij ook als journalist fiks heeft gepromoot en waarvan hij nu toegeeft fout te hebben gezeten.

Dit halfslachtige excuus gebruikt hij nu om Bernie Sanders aan te vallen, Sanders één van de Democratische kandidaten die opgaat voor het VS presidentschap.... Sanders gebruikt de illegale oorlog van de VS tegen Irak als voorbeeld om het volk duidelijk te maken dat de VS moet stoppen met haar terroristische interventies*, die keer op keer dood en verderf zaaien... Zo heeft de VS, met hulp van andere NAVO-lidstaten, alleen deze eeuw al meer dan 2,5 miljoen mensen vermoord, dan wel is verantwoordelijk voor de moord op die mensen......

Kortom Sanders heeft duidelijk een goed punt als hij de agressie van de VS aan de kaak stelt, agressie, of beter gezegd terreur die bovendien kapitalen kost. Echter niet in de ogen van Boot, die wil dat Sanders zijn mond moet houden over de Irak oorlog en moet toegeven dat hij wel eens fout zat, daar hijzelf ook al eens fout zat en dat heeft toegegeven.... ha! ha! ha! ha! Boot zat niet één keer fout, maar meerdere keren nam hij het op voor de VS terreur, die keer op keer was gebaseerd op leugens, verdraaiingen, false flag operaties en andersoortige desinformatie...... Hoe kan je stellen dat iemand wel fout moet zijn daar hij nooit heeft moeten toegeven fout te zijn geweest??? Krankzinnig!

Het is wel duidelijk dat ook de media in de VS al bezig zijn om de presidentsverkiezingen in november dit jaar te manipuleren en naar de hand van de machtigen te zetten..... Bernie Sanders, Tulsi Gabbard en Elizabeth Warren, zijn liberale (in de echte zin van het woord) presidentskandidaten van de Democraten, waar je bij Sanders zelfs kan spreken over een min of meer socialistische inslag. Voor deze drie kandidaten geldt dat de reguliere (massa-) media hen 'niet lusten', immers zij vormen een bedreiging voor het grootkapitaal en de neoliberale status quo die men zo angstvallig verdedigt in die media.... Uiteraard is e.e.a. ook gebaseerd op de anti-oorlogsstemming van deze 3 democratische kandidaten, immers oorlogsvoering is goed voor de aandelenportefeuilles van de eigenaren van die media: plutocraten en investeringsmaatschappijen.....    

Daarbovenop komen nog de enorme giften van de hier voor aangehaalde plutocraten en investeerders, figuren die niet alleen die reguliere media bezitten, maar ook grootaandeelhouders zijn van de wapenindustrie, de oliemaatschappijen, de financiële sector, dan wel farmaceutische industrie...... De giften van deze opperschoften bepalen uiteraard ook de politiek die de gewenste en betaalde kandidaat zal volgen (al geven ze zowel aan de Republikeinen als de Democraten), met andere woorden: de VS verkiezingen worden al vele decennia gemanipuleerd, niet vanuit Rusland, Iran, China of Noord-Korea, maar vanuit de VS zelf!!

Lees het artikel van Johnstone waarin ze gehakt maakt van de miezerige oorlogshitser Max Boot, die al eens durfde te stellen dat de VS moet bezuinigen op sociale zekerheid en medicare en de belastingen moet verhogen om het VS leger in staat te stellen andere landen binnen te kunnen vallen**:

Iraq-Raping Neocon Upset That People Keep Bringing Up The Iraq Thing

by Caitlin Johnstone

There's so much going on in US politics right now that it's hard to know what to write about. With all the shouting about the election, impeachment, Trump's bogus Palestine "deal" and so many other important political issues competing for airtime with Kobe Bryant's death and coronavirus fear porn, it feels like we're already at white noise information saturation, and it's not even February yet. Things are going to get a whole lot noisier next month when the Democratic presidential primaries (and all the establishment manipulations that will necessarily accompany them) get underway, and Julian Assange's extradition trial begins.

One of the many interesting developments that I can pluck out of this cacophony to earn my keep here has been the hysterical response to Bernie Sanders' polling bump from the Bush-era neoconservatives who've been rehabilitated by a weird new alliance with the Democratic Party in the age of Trump. In just the last few days we've seen a deluge of smear pieces against Sanders published in mainstream news outlets by virulent "never-Trump" neocons Bret "Bedbug" Stephens, David "Axis of Evil" Frum, Jennifer "John McCain is too dovish" Rubin, and Max "The Case for American Empire" Boot.

Which has turned out to be a good thing so far, for two reasons. Firstly it has ripped off the mask of woke progressivism that these neoconservative war whores slapped on their faces three years ago to promote mass murder within the Democratic establishment's astroturf "Resistance" to Trump. Secondly it has educated an entire new generation of young voters about the evils of the Iraq invasion, and who helped facilitate it.

Max Boot ✔ @MaxBoot

“You can trust me now,” I said, “precisely because I have changed my mind. Don’t trust anyone who hasn’t.”
⁰Which brings me to Bernie Sanders, who never seems to have changed his views about anything.

.@PostOpinions: https://wapo.st/2O9ujUG

Opinion | Bernie Sanders is ‘insanely consistent.’ That’s nothing to brag about.

The candidate's rigidly held views are an ominous sign.

washingtonpost.com

705  11:03 PM - Jan 29, 2020  Twitter Ads info and privacy

1,692 people are talking about this

It is always a good sign when a bunch of pundits who push for increased military aggression at every opportunity are upset about the same thing, but I'm going to single out Max Boot here because his Bernie tantrum has been especially hilarious to watch.

In an article for The Washington Post titled "Bernie Sanders is ‘insanely consistent.’ That’s nothing to brag about.", Boot bizarrely decided to attack Sanders on the fact that he hasn't often had to admit that he's been wrong about things.

"But it is true that I’ve rethought my views on some important matters, such as the Iraq War, and started speaking out on issues such global warming, gun control and white privilege where reality conflicts with conservative dogma," Boot writes, adding that he can be trusted now “precisely because I have changed my mind. Don’t trust anyone who hasn’t.”

It is fascinating that Boot should choose consistency as a line of attack against Sanders, because he himself has been remarkably consistent throughout his entire career. He's just been consistent in the other direction.

Promoting fiendishly aggressive interventionist agendas everywhere from Iraq to Afghanistan to Libya to Syria to Iran to Russia, the former PNAC member Boot has been a leading narrative manager for some of the most catastrophically disastrous military interventions in living memory. He has not just promoted imperialist agendas which destroyed the lives of untold millions of human beings, but has also consistently promoted the pernicious underpinning philosophy of that imperialism as in his 2001 masterpiece "The Case for American Empire".

And that is the one and only reason Boot remains gainfully employed as a famous and widely circulated mainstream foreign policy analyst. He has no redeeming characteristics.

He is not smart. He is not charming. He is never, ever right about anything. He simply advocates for the deployment of expensive military equipment consistently and reliably.

The oligarchic media love that in a guy.

Me: I was wrong and I admit it, but I learned from it. Bernie should too. He’s been wrong about some stuff.

Bernie Bro: You were wrong. Why should we listen to you?

Me: https://t.co/xZOvTozxNs

— Max Boot (@MaxBoot) January 29, 2020

Boot, who has been giddy with excitement that his fellow traveller John Bolton has entered his side of the impeachment debate, wrapped up his unintentional self-parody by cheerleading Trump's regime change interventionism in Venezuela and the right-wing military coup in Bolivia. After its publication he quickly found himself under fire on Twitter by the Sanders campaign's David Sirota, who rightly criticized his forceful promotion of the Iraq invasion. Boot responded by whining that the "Bernie Bro" should accept his admission that Iraq was a mistake and forget about the whole thing.

"Me: I was wrong and I admit it, but I learned from it. Bernie should too. He’s been wrong about some stuff. Bernie Bro: You were wrong. Why should we listen to you?", Boot tweeted.

"LOL. Exactly," Jennifer Rubin responded.

And that just says so much about the coddled, insulated, completely unchallenged life that these mass media pundits are accustomed to, right there. To believe that you can help pave the way for a war that kills a million people based on lies and then years later say

"Oh yeah I made an oopsie with that one, I need a do-over" requires an unbelievable amount of entitlement and privilege, let alone to be able to self-righteously hold that admission up as some kind of superior virtue that is worthy of praise and deference.

You don't get to help murder a million people and then act indignant when people bring it up. That is not a thing. Your admission of wrongdoing does not undo the wrong that you did, and only someone who has been raised in a consequence-free environment their entire life could possibly believe that it would.

Max Boot ✔ @MaxBoot

About to go on @CNNTonight to discuss impeachment. http://wapo.st/313fSai 

Striking that Trump lawyers pretend Bolton smoking-gun evidence doesn't exist. And that so many GOP senators still argue that there's no reason to hear from Bolton. The lack of GOP outrage is outrageous.

Opinion | Republicans’ lack of outrage — even after Bolton’s smoking-gun evidence — is outrageous

The president’s abuse of power is a far bigger deal than Adam Schiff’s remark.

washingtonpost.com

467  3:59 AM - Jan 28, 2020  Twitter Ads info and privacy

153 people are talking about this

Hey Max? If you ever get tired of being completely wrong about everything, here’s a hot tip for you: maybe start with crossing off the idea that murdering a bunch of people is an ideal solution to every problem. Normal people don’t think that way. That’s why you’re wrong more often than any normal person. It really is that simple.

Nobody who promoted the unforgivable Iraq invasion should ever be listened to about anything for as long as they live. They certainly should not be elevated in prominent slots on mainstream news outlets. They should not even be able to find employment anywhere more glamorous than a McDonald's.

It is good that these people are exposing themselves, and it is good that more people are learning about the Iraq invasion. Nothing has ever been done to make right the unfathomable evils which were inflicted upon our species by that one horrific act, let alone the many other disastrous interventions which have been endorsed by Max Boot.

Let's all hope for a sane world where mass military slaughter is seen for what it is, and where war whores like Max Boot are seen for what they are, and where both of these things fade into obsolescence forever.

_____________________________

Thanks for reading! The best way to get around the internet censors and make sure you see the stuff I publish is to subscribe to the mailing list for my website, which will get you an email notification for everything I publish. My work is entirely reader-supported, so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around, liking me on Facebook, following my antics on Twitter, checking out my podcast on either Youtube, soundcloud, Apple podcasts or Spotify, following me on Steemit, throwing some money into my hat on Patreon or Paypal, purchasing some of my sweet merchandise, buying my new book Rogue Nation: Psychonautical Adventures With Caitlin Johnstone, or my previous book Woke: A Field Guide for Utopia Preppers. For more info on who I am, where I stand, and what I’m trying to do with this platform, click here. Everyone, racist platforms excluded, has my permission to republish or use any part of this work (or anything else I’ve written) in any way they like free of charge.

Bitcoin donations:1Ac7PCQXoQoLA9Sh8fhAgiU3PHA2EX5Zm2

Caitlin Johnstone | January 30, 2020 at 3:50 am | Tags: Bernie Sanders, David Sirota, iraq, max boot, neocon, Politics | Categories: Article, News | URL: https://wp.me/p9tj6M-20A

============================
* Je begrijpt dat Sanders de illegale interventies van de VS nooit zal aanduiden als 'terreur', immers dat zou onmiddellijk een eind maken aan zijn politieke carriere...... In de VS mag je gerust kritiek uitoefenen op het buitenlandbeleid van de VS en op de acties die het leger uitvoert, echter als politicus het woord terreur gebruiken voor de acties van dat leger, gaat 10 stations te ver en zal onmiddellijk een hysterische haat- en lastercampagne uitlokken bij de reguliere media......

** Zie: 'Het 'arme', 'weerloze' militair-industriële complex in de VS 'heeft miljarden aan extra orders nodig......'

Zie ook:
'Joe Biden met dubbel verlies: hij dreigde met een rechtszaak om zo de resultaten van de voorverkiezingen in Iowa tegen te houden van publicatie' (zie ook de links in dat bericht naar meer info over de VS [voor-]verkiezingen van 2020)
 
Voor meer berichten over de illegale oorlog tegen Irak, Max Boot en/of Sanders, klik op het bewuste label, direct onder dit bericht.

John Bolton (VS nationaal 'veiligheidsadviseur'): het is een goede zaak om te liegen over oorlog.......

Caitlin Johnstone schreef een artikel op haar site waarin ze een uitspraak van Bolton aanhaalde, waarin hij openlijk stelde dat het goed is om te liegen over oorlog (en oorlogsmisdaden, iets dat oorlogsmisdadiger Bolton er uiteraard niet bij vertelde)

Johnstone kreeg van Whitney Webb een video uit 2010 waarin psychopaat Bolton deze en andere ongelofelijke uitspraken durfde te doen. Alsof het zijn zaak extra zou ondersteunen haalde Bolton een uitspraak aan van Winston Churchill (die in de 20er jaren van de vorige eeuw nog mosterdgas inzette tegen bedoeïenen in wat nu Irak is.....), de vertaling van deze uitspraak komt ongeveer neer op: de waarheid in een oorlog is zo belangrijk dat deze omringd moet worden door leugen lijfwachten..... (de Engelse versie die Bolton gebruikte vind je in het hieronder opgenomen artikel van Johnstone)

Om zijn uitspraak nog meer kracht bij te zetten stelde Bolton dat het noodzakelijk was om te liegen over D-day..... Alsof dit ook maar enigszins is te vergelijken met de illegale oorlogen die de VS sinds WOII voert, dit wel of niet in combinatie met een geheime economische oorlog, om zo een opstand te veroorzaken, waarmee een regime verandering zou kunnen worden doorgedrukt.....

Als het voorgaande niet lukt staat uiteraard het scenario van een VS invasie nog ter beschikking, ook al een beproefd recept van de VS. Naast geheime militaire CIA acties en het vermoorden van verdachten middels drones (waar meer dan 90% van de slachtoffers niet eens werd verdacht), heeft de VS sinds het eind van WOII meer dan 22,5 miljoen mensen vermoord (waarbij de VS deels ook de NAVO gebruikte, waarover dit land permanent het opperbevel voert...).....

Lees het ontluisterend verhaal van Johnstone en zegt het voort, we zijn meer dan overtijd als het gaat om het blind zijn bij het overgrote deel van de westerse bevolking voor de grootschalige terreur die de VS gebruikt tegen een fiks deel van de wereld........ Terreur ook uit onze naam, zo was Nederland betrokken bij de voorbereiding van de oorlog tegen Irak, die ons land ook nog eens politiek en militair steunde....... Terreur die mede met ons belastinggeld werd en wordt uitgeoefend..... 

Om over de enorme kosten die oorlogsvoering met zich meebrengen maar te zwijgen, kosten voor wederopbouw van het land dat door de VS in puin werd gelegd, kosten voor behandeling van oorlogsslachtoffers en de kosten die worden gemaakt voor vluchtelingen (waar de ellende voor deze mensen niet eens in geld is uit te drukken...), vluchtelingen die met vele duizenden al zijn verdronken in de Middellandse en Egeïsche Zee..... Kosten als de 6 miljard euro die de EU aan Turkije gaf om vluchtelingen af te schrikken, gevangen te zetten en tegen te houden als ze willen vluchten naar de EU, terwijl EU landen, zoals gezegd, mede hoofdverantwoordelijk zijn voor de reden waarom deze mensen hun moederland ontvluchtten......

De brutaliteit die oorlogshitsers als de topman van Washington Institute Of Near East Policy (WINEP), Patrick Clawson, ten toon spreiden is ongekend, zo pleitte deze smerige oorlogshitser openlijk voor een false flag operatie om zo een reden te creëren waarmee de VS Iran (zogenaamd legitiem) aan kan vallen (de link naar dat gebeuren vind je in het artikel van Johnstone). Met die strijdbijl heeft de VS al veel vaker gehakt, neem de reden voor deelname van de VS aan de Eerste en Tweede Wereldoorlog, of de oorlog van de VS tegen Noord-Vietnam......

Het artikel van Johnstone nam ik over van Anti-Media:

That Time John Bolton Said It’s Good to Lie About War

May 16, 2019 at 8:37 am

Written by Caitlin Johnstone

(CJ Opinion) — Journalist Whitney Webb recently tweeted a 2010 video clip I’d never seen before featuring US National Security Advisor John Bolton defending the use of deception in advancing military agendas, which highlights something we should all be paying attention to as Trump administration foreign policy becomes increasingly Boltonized.

On a December 2010 episode of Fox News’ Freedom Watch, Bolton and the show’s host Andrew Napolitano were debating about recent WikiLeaks publications, and naturally the subject of government secrecy came up.

“Now I want to make the case for secrecy in government when it comes to the conduct of national security affairs, and possibly for deception where that’s appropriate,” Bolton said. “You know Winston Churchill said during World War Two that in wartime truth is so important it should be surrounded by a bodyguard of lies.”

“Do you really believe that?” asked an incredulous Napolitano.

“Absolutely,” Bolton replied.

“You would lie in order to preserve the truth?”

“If I had to say something I knew was false to protect American national security, I would do it,” Bolton answered.

“I don’t think we’re often faced with that difficulty, but would I lie about where the D-Day invasion was going to take place to deceive the Germans, you’d better believe it,” Bolton continued.

“Why do people in the government think that the laws of society or the rules don’t apply to

them?” Napolitano asked.

“Because they are not dealing in the civil society we live in under the Constitution,” Bolton replied. “They are dealing in the anarchic environment internationally where different rules apply.”

“But you took an oath to uphold the Constitution, and the Constitution mandates certain openness and certain fairness,” Napolitano protested. “You’re willing to do away with that in order to attain a temporary military goal?”

“I think as Justice Jackson said in a famous decision, the Constitution is not a suicide pact,” Bolton said. “And I think defending the United States from foreign threats does require actions that in a normal business environment in the United States we would find unprofessional. I don’t make any apology for it.”

So that’s a thing. And it’s important for us to know it’s a thing because of the way things are heating up in Iran right now, since Bolton’s fingerprints are all over it.

Bolton has long been calling for war with Iran and in a paid speech in July 2017 told his

pro-egime change MEK terror cult audience that they would be celebrating the successful overthrow of the Iranian government together before 2019. Now we’re seeing threat alarms being elevated and fearmongering about Iranian missiles being circulated, with reports being leaked to the press of possible plans to send 120,000 US troops to the region.

This is an environment that is ripe for deceptions of all sorts, and, given what Bolton said on live television nearly a decade ago, we would all do very well to remain very, very skeptical of any and all news we hear about Iran going forward. If for example you hear that within this environment of escalated tensions and military posturing Iran or one of its “proxies” has attacked the United States in some way, your immediate response should be one of intense skepticism about what the mass media talking heads are telling you to believe.

Back in 2012 at a forum for the Washington Institute Of Near East Policy (WINEP) think tank, the group’s Director of Research Patrick Clawson openly talked about the possibility of using a false flag to provoke a war with Iran.

“I frankly think that crisis initiation is really tough, and it’s very hard for me to see how the United States president can get us to war with Iran,” Clawson began.

(Can I just pause here to note what a bizarre series of words that is? “Get us to war with Iran?”

Get us to the thing that every sane human being wants to avoid with every fiber of their being? You want to “get us to” there? This is not the kind of thing normal humans say. You only hear this kind of insanity in the DC swamp where creatures like John Bolton have their roots.)

“Which leads me to conclude that if in fact compromise is not coming, that the traditional way that America gets to war is what would be best for US interests,” Clawson added. “Some people might think that Mr. Roosevelt wanted to get us into the war… you may recall we had to wait for Pearl Harbor. Some people might think that Mr. Wilson wanted to get us into World War One; you may recall we had to wait for the Lusitania episode. Some people might think that Mr. Johnson wanted to get us into Vietnam; you may recall we had to wait for the Gulf of Tonkin episode. We didn’t go to war with Spain until the USS Maine exploded. And may I point out that Mr. Lincoln did not feel that he could call out the Army until Fort Sumter was attacked, which is why he ordered the commander at Fort Sumter to do exactly that thing which the South Carolinians said would cause an attack.”

“So if, in fact, the Iranians aren’t going to compromise, it would be best if somebody else started the war,” Clawson continued. “One can combine other means of pressure with sanctions. I mentioned that explosion on August 17th. We could step up the pressure. I mean look people, Iranian submarines periodically go down. Some day, one of them might not come up. Who would know why? We can do a variety of things, if we wish to increase the pressure (I’m not advocating that) but I’m just suggesting that this is not an either/or proposition — just sanctions have to succeed or other things. We are in the game of using covert means against the Iranians.

We could get nastier at that.”

WikiLeaks

✔@wikileaks

“We Know Where Your Kids Live” John Bolton threatened head of chemical weapons commission as part of effort launch war against Iraq https://theintercept.com/2018/03/29/john-bolton-trump-bush-bustani-kids-opcw/ …

1,664

6:10 AM - Apr 2, 2018

“We Know Where Your Kids Live”: How John Bolton Once Threatened an International Official

“John Bolton is a bully,” said José Bustani, a retired Brazilian diplomat. “I don’t know how people can work for him.”

theintercept.com

So these are ideas that have been in circulation for many years. That gun is loaded and ready to fire.

Bolton trussed up his 2010 confession using an example that most people would agree with: that it was reasonable for the Allied forces to deliberately deceive the Nazis about the nature of the D-Day invasion. But we know John Bolton better than that by now.

This PNAC director and architect of the Iraq war once threatened to murder a foreign official’s children because his successful diplomatic efforts were putting a damper on the manufacturing of consent for the Iraq invasion. He wasn’t defending the use of deception in crucial military options used to halt tyrants trying to take over the world, he was defending the use of deception in the senseless wars of aggression that he has built his political career on advancing.

Take everything you hear about Iran with a planet-sized grain of salt, dear reader, and everything you hear about Venezuela too while we’re on the subject. There are skillful manipulators who are hell bent on toppling the governments of those nations, and they have absolutely no problem whatsoever with deceiving you in order to facilitate that. And they don’t believe the rules apply to them.

Support Caitlin’s work on Patreon or Paypal.

Opinion by Caitlin Johnstone / Republished with permission / Medium / Report a typo