I am disgusted by some Democrats, and Democratic news-media, the ones who are so prejudiced as “liberals” that they’re not calling for Obama to be impeached, removed from office, and then tried for war-crimes (among others). Just because he calls himself a “Democrat” doesn’t mean he is one, and it also doesn’t mean that he won’t be a worse embarrassment to the Democratic Party if he fills out his term than if Democrats ourselves introduce the impeachment-resolution against him and pull the flush-cord on this one ourselves. In fact, it’s the only thing that can salvage the Party, not to mention perhaps, the country. Joe Biden wouldn’t be worse, and the principle of the thing is even more important: How conservative does a “Democrat” have to be in order for him to be treated as a fake “Democrat” and expelled from any office under that false label which thus has been smearing us all — all Democrats? Obama crosses that line, and far over it.
The supposedly progressive magazine, The Nation, had an article on June 30th, by Steven F. Cohen, which reeked of the immunity of even this fascist “Democrat” to calling-it-like-it-is about his far-right sensibilities and actual fascist actions (forget about his lying words). It poured forth with mere disappointment about what is happening in Ukraine, and blamed an alleged tolerance of these alleged deficiencies on conservative congressional Republicans (for whom he used the term “Hawks”), and on a supposedly insufficiently involved Democratic President Obama. The article’s headline itself is a lie: “The Silence of American Hawks about Kiev’s Atrocities.” The real problem was far worse than merely “silence,” and it’s not just from “Hawks”; it is from Obama himself. What it is from him is the command authority that he actually exercised as the President to arrange a false-flag event in Ukraine that overthrew the legally elected President of Ukraine, Viktor Yanukovych — a corrupt man, in a string of corrupt leaders of that tragic country, but there were legal ways that Obama could have sought for his impeachment by Ukraine’s Parliament, and Obama didn’t use them, because he was determined to replace Yanukovych with a rabidly anti-Russian regime, and a coup was the most effective way to do that. Obama didn’t pursue legal means at all; instead, he arranged for snipers to shoot both at demonstrators and at police (lots of murders, none of them prosecuted), in order to bring down Yanukovych so that the Obama team could install instead rabid right-wingers who immediately instituted a policy of ethnic cleansing of the areas that had voted overwhelmingly for Yanukovych, so as to get rid of those voters (outrageously entailing, along the way, many thousands of murders, and they are going on right now).
However, the real problem, in U.S. Ukrainian policy, isn’t as Cohen was suggesting, just vague “Hawks,” presumably Republicans in Congress; Congress doesn’t even run foreign policy; it is instead the Executive branch, which does; and the culpability there, on Ukraine-policy, went to the very top of the Executive branch, to President Barack Obama himself, who has run a tight and straight-out racist-fascist, or “nazi,” ship on this matter, first by using neo-nazi thugs to overthrow the prior (and the country’s last freely and democratic and nationally elected) President, the pro-Russian Viktor Yanukovych, and then by handing off the country’s government to a coalition of fascist and nazi political parties: the fascist Fatherland, and the nazi Right Sector and Svoboda Parties. All three of those Parties took over the government with an avowed aim of outlawing the Russian language (which they did but then retracted under pressure from the EU), and of then exterminating and terrorizing to flee the country, the people who speak it, ethnic Russians, or, as Yulia Tymoshenko, leader of the Fatherland Party, who was Obama’s preferred choice to become the new President, said of Russians, in a tapped phone call, on 24 March 2014, ”They must be killed with nuclear weapons.” She seems to have meant this for Russia itself, not just for Russians living in Ukraine: “I’ll use all my connections, I’ll raise the whole world — as soon as I’m able to — in order to make sure.. Bugger! … even scorched earth won’t remain where Russia stands.” So, she was as anti-Russian as a person can be: the perfect person to install NATO nuclear missiles to strike Moscow within ten minutes. Perhaps she believed that Obama will unleash nuclear weapons against Russia. Perhaps she thought that this was why he had arranged for her to be freed from prison, where she had been convicted for corruption.
Since she was still in prison on her corruption-conviction, Obama had chosen her friend Arseniy Yatsenyuk to lead the coup-government. When people in the area of his ethnic-cleansing campaign managed to shoot down one of the regime’s planes and its 49 soldiers who were in the process of perpetrating that ethnic cleansing, Yatsenyuk himself vowed revenge against them, by using similar language: ”They lost their lives … in a situation facing a threat to be killed by invaders [i.e., by the residents, not by those troops from the northwest that they had shot down in order to protect themselves and their families from the actual invaders] and sponsored by subhumans [presumably meaning here ethnic Russians],” he said. “First, we will commemorate the heroes [the exterminators] by wiping out those who killed them and then by cleaning our land from the evil.” However, of course, that’s what he was already doing (“cleaning” the land), which is the reason why that plane was shot down in the first place: those troops were invaders and killers. A propaganda TV commercial had been running on Ukrainian TVs ever since the start of the bombing-campaign, in which the chief local agricultural pest (the Colorado beetle), which Ukraine’s far-right frequently used in order to symbolize Ukraine’s Russian-speakers, is portrayed destroying crops and then being exterminated as the solution to the problem in Ukraine. The symbolism used there is immediately understandable to Ukrainians, though (and this is one reason it’s used, since they are advised by our own CIA) not so easily understandable to people outside that country. Propaganda like this helps to rouse the racist nationalist sentiment to make them “exterminators,” heroes to their fellow-racist-nationalist, or nazi, haters of people whose native language is Russian.
I wrote to Dr. Cohen and asked him, “How can you say a thing like this: ‘And yet, the Obama administration reacts with silence, and worse’ [to the Ukrainian Government’s ethnic cleansing campaign in the southeast]?” He emailed me back: “Mr. Zuesse, A rude, offensive email, and evidence you cannot, or do not, read.”
So I wrote back to him:
When you said, “And yet, the Obama administration reacts with silence, if not worse,” you avoided saying that this Ukrainian government would not be in power today were it not for Barack Obama; and you didn’t even acknowledge that “the Obama administration” had placed them in power.
It’s bad enough when a supposed progressive refuses to blame the culpable CEO (in this case Obama) but goes only up as far as the vague “his administration,” as if that CEO weren’t really responsible or “the buck stops here” as if to deny Truman’s adage; but you implicitly absolved even Obama’s administration (including Nuland, who really ran the show there, for her boss Kerry, who ran it for his boss Obama) of having placed these Ukrainian monsters into power — and then who gave those monsters only encouragement in the war-crimes they were committing.
Your phrase “silence, if not worse,” is nothing more than a vague charge, when the actual war-crimes by the entire Administration on this, an Administration who have functioned seamlessly together as one on it, are clear and documented on an impressive basis even this early after the events themselves (as I and many others have already documented).
There are other ways than a false-flag coup that the Administration could have pressed for a legal process of impeachment of Yanukovych that accorded with the Ukrainian Constitution, if Obama were really so determined to improve things in that tragic country, but instead Obama had his CIA arrange for snipers in what was virtually certainly a false-flag operation, for anyone who has looked at the many videos on it, as I and many others have carefully done. But the clincher, as Paet noted in his phone call to Ashton, was that the people whom we placed in power blocked everyone who was urging for there to be a rigorous and formal legal investigation — just as they also blocked any investigation to prosecute the May 2nd Odessa massacre, and blocked all investigation into all of their other war-crimes of government targeting randomly the civilian population in areas of the country that had voted heavily for Yanukovych — their ethnic-cleansing operation, which was implicitly demanded by [IMF chief] Christine Lagarde, and which was so brilliantly organized by Victoria Nuland on her chain-of-command’s behalf, straight up to the Oval Office. Lagarde wants the money paid to her clientelle and demands that it be extracted from the impoverished Ukrainian public though the debt-losses are actually thefts by oligarchs that now are stashed away in Swiss and other tax-haven bank accounts, and that’s why she wants Ukraine to remain a single country, 100% assessable for those debts, no matter how much force and death is required to do that. But for Obama, the key factor is to get rid of the ethnic Russians so that there won’t be resistance to his placing there NATO missiles aimed at Moscow. But whatever the motivation for the international war-crimes, that’s what they are. You didn’t even touch on Brzezinski’s rabid Russia-hatred, nor on other academic backing behind Obama’s anti-Russian supremacism, such as “nuclear primacy” replacing “MAD.” I mean: it’s insane!
Though the case against Obama on this entire affair is already so thorough and damning, and is vastly worse than merely “silence” on these matters — especially because Obama has always spoken supportively of these Ukrainian monsters that he has empowered, which is not “silence” at all (your “silence if not worse” was a shameful euphemism for actual war-criminality) — your article is so weak that many of the reader-comments to it come from actual supporters of the monsters themselves: you didn’t even document a case against them, much less against “the Obama administration,” and you ignored Obama himself except to portray him vaguely as having been, what would you say (because you didn’t say anything, actually) “weak”?
As I have documented extensively in my WHY the Holocaust Happened, Adolf Hitler was not weak on the Holocaust (such as David Irving and even Ian Kershaw have alleged, despite all the massive evidence to the contrary — which they ignore), and Barack Obama is not weak on the ethnic cleansing that is going on right now in Ukraine (as I have documented in my many articles on that subject). Hitler and Obama have instead been brilliant and determined leaders who belong in hell, or at least in prison “if not worse.”
I would call your article on the Ukrainian subject fairly well-informed, distressingly vague as regards its evidentiary base (i.e., its documentary sources), and a virtual whitewash of the Obama Administration, and an even more scandalous total whitewash of Obama’s personal culpability for what are certainly (on his part, with his command-authority here) international war crimes, and which were, on the part of Yatsenyuk, Kolomoysky, Avakov, and Koval (the latter being the “special filtration measures” guy), domestic war crimes of ethnic cleansing.
Your article didn’t document even the latter, the culpability of the Ukrainian officials whom the Obama Administration placed in charge; so, you didn’t even touch the culpability of the Obama Administration; so, you left the President himself totally off-the-hook, despite your vague criticisms of him, which seem to have missed the mark for the people who wrote reader-comments, as one would expect to happen from such a scandalously poor article.
And to this, he answered:
Your idiom and hyper-“analysis” is not mine, and I will end this with that. Except to say that when you start with analogies between Obama and Hitler, you enter a realm where no one who seeks to influence readers would sanely venture. (A p.s.: Hitler was an actual leader (of the monster sort); Obama is scarcely a leader of any kind, as you would know if you follow DC politics.) Konets. sfc
In other words: a supposedly progressive magazine lets Obama off the hook on his war crimes by saying that Obama “is scarcely a leader of any kind.” He initiated a neo-nazi government right next door to Russia, mortal threat of a future nuclear blitz against Moscow, and yet he “is scarcely a leader.”
Cohen is the husband of the magazine’s editor, publisher, and co-owner, Katrina vanden Heuvel, and is also supposed to be an expert on the former Soviet countries and cultures (being a professor of those subjects at NYU).
Why do people subscribe to such publications, when there are really high quality informative (as opposed to such dissembling and largely misinformative) articles that are available free-of-charge online at sites that don’t charge for anything? Why pay for trash, especially when plenty of gold is free?
No matter what so-called “progressive” magazines might say about so-called “Democrats” such as Obama, he’s a war-criminal and a hyper-protector of the biggest crooks on Wall Street, and any publication that soft-peddles his evilness on account of his being a “Democrat,” isn’t progressive; it’s not even decently liberal; it is garbage.
If it were totally free garbage, it could be worth reading; but it’s not (though that particular article is, which is why I write about it; I tend to ignore what’s behind any pay-wall). It’s an insult to progressivism and to progressives, to accept that as being it.
I look into the eyes of Inna Kukuruza, such a fine human being, peering up at me from that video which was taken of her just before she expired dead from one of Obama’s bombs in Luhansk, and I ask myself: What would she say about Obama, or about a magazine that hides Obama’s evilness instead of exposing it to its readers? She cannot tell the public this truth; she didn’t even know it herself; but we are journalists above all else, and so, isn’t it our obligation to report such truths? Who is to tell these truths, if we do not? She had harmed no one. She had helped many, besides her loving daughter. She was a social worker coming out of her office when his bomb fell, doing this to her. There are thousands of victims like her. And, then, I consider Joachim Hagopian’s fine article “Getting Away with Murder,” and I ask myself: What would Michael Hastings think about this? Probably he and Inna would agree on it, and I do too.
After all: I am a journalist. It’s our professional obligation to have this attitude (though very few do). Pretenders who merely slur the truth don’t belong, and the readers should be informed of the reality, about both the truth, and journalists who refuse to report it. Those links in that last paragraph are to the reality, staring each and every one of us in the face about this truth. I cite them, as my authority on it.
Pretense has simply no appropriate place in the journalistic profession, in my opinion. And Obama should be impeached by Democrats.
Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.