Executive Intelligence Review


Robert Parry: Neocons, Media, and Liberal Dems Anti-Trump Zealotry Could Push Trump to War with Russia

March 5, 2017 (EIRNS)—In a piece posted March 4, Robert Parry warns that Washington’s "hysteria" over Trump’s alleged transgressions over Russian contacts has reached such extreme levels that a cornered Trump could easily "make a miscalculation" that could escalate into a nuclear confrontation. "But," Parry writes, "Democrats, liberals and the mainstream news media seem to hate Trump so much they will take that risk." For emphasis, Parry quotes Thomas Friedman’s ranting piece in the New York Times, in which he compared the alleged Russian hacking to both Pearl Harbor and 9/11, two events which, Parry notes, "led the United States into violent warfare."

Parry further turns around Friedman’s wild claim—that Russia’s alleged election interference "goes to the very core of our democracy"—stating, rather, that it "is the failure to deal with this issue ... with the sobriety and the seriousness that should accompany a question of war or peace" which is the real threat to our nation. Then, proceeding from one flash-point to the next, Parry injects that "sobriety and seriousness" which the hyped up media has been denying the citizenry.

First of all, he says, the U.S. intelligence community "should lay its cards on the table." After all, they had plenty of time to spread their "evidence" of Russian hacking of Democrat’s e-mails around—even overseas—but "they never told the American people what the evidence is," while their two "laughably short" reports essentially amount to saying: "trust us." Not only has WikiLeaks declared that the e-mails did not come from the Russians, he notes, "but nothing that WikiLeaks published was false." In other words, there was no "fake news" here!

Therefore, he writes,

"even if the Russians did reveal this information to the American people, how does knowing relevant facts regarding a presidential campaign translate into an attack on ’the core of our democracy’?"

In an indictment of the media, he continues:

"Usually, journalists believe that getting the truth out, even if it embarrasses some politician or some political party, is healthy for a democracy."

He adds:

"Frankly, I found the WikiLeaks material far more appropriate for an American political debate than the scurrilous rumors that the Clinton campaign was circulating about Trump supposedly getting urinated on by Russian prostitutes in a five-star Moscow hotel, claims for which no evidence has been presented."

While the media are all too willing to give the FBI a free pass in Hillary’s loss—overlooking her obvious failures—

"here we are with The Washington Post, The New York Times, CNN and almost the entire mainstream media (along with leading liberals and Democrats) panting every time they discover that someone from Trump’s circle met with a Russian."

Parry reminds readers that Russia had long been "collaborating with the U.S. government," naming the Afghanistan war, the Iranian nuclear deal, and the Syrian chemical weapons as examples.

Instead, Russian cooperation in exactly those two areas—Iran and Syria—has made Putin "a target for Washington’s powerful neoconservatives," who, along with the Israelis and Saudis, "wanted ’regime change’ in Tehran and Damascus." Naming Victoria Nuland, John McCain, and NED president Carl Gershman, Parry says they took aim at Ukraine, to which "Obama fell in line."

"What’s actually happening here should be obvious," Parry writes.

"The Obama administration, the Democrats and the mainstream media were horrified at Trump’s election ... So these anti-Trump forces grabbed at the most potent weapon available, the suspicions that Trump had somehow colluded with Russia,"

no matter the evidence, or lack thereof. Parry, who has seen his share of "political investigations," notes that it is "power—much more than truth," which usually determines the direction of these events.

Subscribe to EIR