Tuesday, November 15, 2016

The Story of China 6

中国故事 | 第六集: |【BBC】| dm |【中英】

Monday, November 14, 2016

The Story of China 5

中国故事 | 第五集:末代帝国 |【BBC】| dm:dm |【中英】

60 Minutes: Donald Trump

During what seemed an interminable campaign, a divided country found all kinds of ways to describe Donald Trump: visionary businessman, vulgar self-promoter, political neophyte.

But after Tuesday, for all Americans, there’s only one description that counts: president-elect.

Since the election, demonstrations against him have broken out in over a dozen cities across the country.  And people on both sides are on edge.

What we discovered in Mr. Trump’s first television interview as president-elect, was that some of his signature issues at the heart of his campaign were not meant to be taken literally, but as opening bids for negotiation.

Tonight, you will also hear from his family about whether they’ll play roles in a Trump presidency.

But we begin with President-elect Trump, whom we interviewed Friday in his penthouse home in the Trump Tower.

Lesley Stahl: Well, congratulations, Mr. Trump.

Donald Trump: Thank you.

Lesley Stahl: You’re president-elect.

Donald Trump: Thank you.

Lesley Stahl: How surprised were you?

Donald Trump: Well, I really felt we were doing well. I was on a string of about 21 straight days of speeches, sometimes many a day and the last two days I really-- I really had a pretty wild time. I did six speeches and then I did seven and--

Lesley Stahl: But everyone thought you were going to lose.

Donald Trump: I know, I did my final speech in Michigan at 1:00 in the morning and we had 31,000 people, many people outside of the arena. And I felt-- when I left, I said, “How are we gonna lose?” We set it up a day before. And we had all of these people. And it was literally at 1:00 in the morning and I said, “This doesn’t look like second place.” So we were really happy, I mean, it was-- these are great people.

Lesley Stahl: On election night, I heard you went completely silent. Was it a sort of realization of the enormity of this thing for you?

 Donald Trump: I think so, it’s enormous. I’ve done a lotta big things, I’ve never done anything like this. It is so big, it is so-- it’s so enormous, it’s so amazing.

 Lesley Stahl: It kind of just took your breath away? Couldn’t talk?

Donald Trump: A li-- a little bit, a little bit. And I think-- I realized that this is a whole different life for me now.

Lesley Stahl: Hillary called you. Tell us about that phone call.

Donald Trump: So Hillary called and it was a lovely call and it was a tough call for her, I mean, I can imagine. Tougher for her than it would have been for me. And for me, it would have been very, very difficult. She couldn’t have been nicer. She just said, “Congratulations, Donald, well done.” And I said, “I want to thank you very much, you were a great competitor.” She is very strong and very smart.

Lesley Stahl: What about Bill Clinton? Did you talk to him?

Donald Trump: He did, he called the next day.

Lesley Stahl: Really? What did he say?

Donald Trump: He actually called last night.

Lesley Stahl: What did he say?

Donald Trump: And he-- he couldn’t have been more gracious. He said it was an amazing run. One of the most amazing he’s ever seen.

Lesley Stahl: He said that.

Donald Trump: He was very, very-- really, very nice.

Lesley Stahl: It was a pretty nasty campaign. Do you regret any of the things you said about her?

Donald Trump: Well, it was a double-side nasty.

Donald Trump: I mean they were tough and I was tough and-- do I regret? I mean, I’m sitting here with you now and we’re gonna do a great job for the country. We’re going to make America great again, I mean, that’s what-- it-- it began with that and that’s where we are right now. There are so many--

Lesley Stahl: So no-- no regrets about--

Donald Trump: I can’t regret. No-- I wish it were softer, I wish it were nicer, I wish maybe even it was more on policy, or whatever you want to say. But-- but I will say that-- it really-- it really is something that I’m very proud of I mean it was a tremendous campaign.

Lesley Stahl: Can we talk about yesterday with President Obama?

Donald Trump: Sure.

Lesley Stahl: 90 minutes. You were scheduled for what? 15?

Donald Trump: 15 max.

[Barack Obama: We talked about foreign policy, we talked about domestic policy.]

Donald Trump: This was just going to be a quick little chat and it lasted close to an hour and a half. And it could have gone on for four hours. I mean it was-- just-- in fact, it was almost hard breaking it up because we had so many things to say. And he told me-- the good things and the bad things, there are things that are tough right now--

Lesley Stahl: Like what?

Donald Trump: Well…

Lesley Stahl: Give us some meat.

Donald Trump:  Well, look I don’t want to divulge, but we talked about the Middle East, that’s tough. It’s a tough situation. I wanted to get his full view and I got his, you know I got a good part of his view.

Lesley Stahl: Uh-huh.

Donald Trump: And I like having that because I’m going to be inheriting that in a short period of time. I found him to be terrific. I found him to be-- very smart and very nice. Great sense of humor, as much as you can have a sense of humor talking about tough subjects, but we were talking about some pretty tough subjects.

Donald Trump:–and we were talking about some victories, also, some things that-- that he feels very good about. But--

Lesley Stahl: Like--

Donald Trump: Well, what I really wanted to focus on was-- the Middle East, North Korea, Obamacare is tough. You know, healthcare is a tough situation.

Lesley Stahl: Oh, I bet he asked you not to undo it.

Donald Trump: Well, he didn’t ask me, no, he told me-- you know, the merits and the difficulties. And we understand that.

Lesley Stahl: You looked pretty sober sitting there in the Oval Office, did something wash over you or--

Donald Trump: No, I think I’m a sober person. I think the press tries to make you into something a little bit different. In my case, a little bit of a wild man. I’m not. I’m actually not. I’m a very sober person. But it was respect for the office, it was respect for the president. Again, I never met him before, but we had-- we had a very good chemistry going. And-- and I really found—it might not be that I agree with him, but I really found the conversation unbelievably interesting.

[Barack Obama: I want to emphasize to you, Mr. President-elect, that we now are gonna want to do everything we can to help you succeed, because if you succeed then the country succeeds.]

Lesley Stahl: Was it at all awkward, at all, given what you’ve said about each other? You said he was not born in this country, he said things about you, he said you’re-- unqualified--

Donald Trump: You know what, it was a very-- it was a very interesting thing because-- I mean, few people have asked me from my family, what was that first period of time like?

Lesley Stahl: Yeah.

Donald Trump: We never discussed what was said about each other. I said terrible things about him, he said terrible things about me. We never ever discussed what we said about each other—

Lesley Stahl: There was no awkwardness?

Donald Trump: I’ll be honest, from my standpoint zero, zero. And that’s strange. I’m actually surprised to tell you that. It’s-- you know, a little bit strange.

[Donald Trump: Thank you, sir.]

Lesley Stahl: Do you think that-- that your election is a repudiation of his presidency?

Donald Trump: No, I think it’s a moment in time where politicians for a long period of time have let people down. They’ve let ‘em down on the job front. They’ve even let ‘em down in terms of the war front. You know, we’ve been fighting this war for 15 years--

Lesley Stahl: This was the message of your campaign.

Donald Trump: We’ve spent $6 trillion in the Middle East, $6 trillion, we could have rebuilt our country twice. And you look at our roads and our bridges and our tunnels and all of the-- and our airports are, like, obsolete. And I think it was just a repudiation of what’s been taking place over a longer period of time than that.

Lesley Stahl: You know, you surprised everyone by winning the primaries, beating 17 other Republicans or 16, whatever-- people are really surprised that you won this election. Are people going to be surprised about how you conduct yourself as president?

Donald Trump: You know, I’ll conduct myself-- in a very good manner, but depends on what the situation is, sometimes you have to be rougher. When I look at-- when I look at the world and you look at how various places are taking advantage of our country, and I say it, and I say it very proudly, it’s going to be America first. It’s not going to be what we’re doing—we, we’ve lost-- we’re losing this country. We’re losing this country. That’s why I won the election. And by the way, won it easily, I mean I won easily. That was big, big.

 Lesley Stahl: Are you going to sometimes have that same rhetoric that you had on the stump? Or are you going to reign it in?

 Donald Trump: Well, sometimes you need a certain rhetoric to get people motivated. I don’t want to be just a little nice monotone character and in many cases I will be.

Lesley Stahl: Can you be?

Donald Trump: Sure I can. I can be easily, that’s easier. Honestly to do that, it’s easier.

Lesley Stahl: So let’s go through very quickly some of the promises you made and tell us if you’re going to do what you said or you’re going to change it in any way. Are you really going to build a wall?

 Donald Trump: Yes.

Lesley Stahl: They’re talking about a fence in the Republican Congress, would you accept a fence?

Donald Trump: For certain areas I would, but certain areas, a wall is more appropriate. I’m very good at this, it’s called construction.

Lesley Stahl: So part wall, part fence?

Donald Trump: Yeah, it could be – it could be some fencing.

Lesley Stahl: What about the pledge to deport millions and millions of undocumented immigrants?

Donald Trump:  What we are going to do is get the people that are criminal and have criminal records, gang members, drug dealers, we have a lot of these people, probably two million, it could be even three million, we are getting them out of our country or we are going to incarcerate. But we’re getting them out of our country, they’re here illegally. After the border is secured and after everything gets normalized, we’re going to make a determination on the people that you’re talking about who are terrific people, they’re terrific people but we are gonna make a determination at that-- But before we make that determination-- Lesley, it’s very important, we want to secure our border.

[Paul Ryan: We had a fantastic, productive meeting.]

Lesley Stahl: So you were with Paul Ryan, you met with the Republican leadership, what was the-- one thing that you all agreed you want to get done right away?

Donald Trump: Well, I would say there was more than one thing, there were three things, it was healthcare, there was immigration and there was a major tax bill lowering taxes in this country. We’re going to substantially simplify and lower the taxes--

Lesley Stahl: And you’ve got both Houses?

Donald Trump: And I have both Houses and we have the presidency, so we can do things--

Lesley Stahl: You can do things lickety-split.

Donald Trump: It’s been a long time since it’s happened.

Donald Trump: And they gave me a lot of credit. Don’t forget, I was abused four or five weeks ago, they said I was going to-- instead of having all three, we would lose all three. So that was good. But those are the three things that we really discussed.

Lesley Stahl: You said that lobbyists owned politicians because they give them money.

Donald Trump: Yeah.

Lesley Stahl: You admitted you used to do it yourself. You have a transition team—

Donald Trump: And when you say lobbyists, lobbyists and special interests.

 Lesley Stahl: And you want to get rid of all of that?

 Donald Trump: I don’t like it, no.

 Lesley Stahl: You don’t like it, but your own transition team, it’s filled with lobbyists.

 Donald Trump: That’s the only people you have down there.

 Lesley Stahl: You have lobbyists from Verizon, you have lobbyists from the oil gas industry, you have food lobby.

Donald Trump: Sure. Everybody’s a lobbyist down there--

 Lesley Stahl: Well, wait

 Donald Trump: That’s what they are. They’re lobbyists or special interests—

Lesley Stahl: On your own transition team.

 Donald Trump:–we are trying to clean up Washington. Look--

 Lesley Stahl: How can you claim--

 Donald Trump: Everything, everything down there-- there are no people-- there are all people that work -- that’s the problem with the system, the system. Right now, we’re going to clean it up. We’re having restrictions on foreign money coming in, we’re going to put on term limits, which a lot of people aren’t happy about, but we’re putting on term limits. We’re doing a lot of things to clean up the system. But everybody that works for government, they then leave government and they become a lobbyist, essentially. I mean, the whole place is one big lobbyist.

Lesley Stahl: But you’re, but you’re basically saying you have to rely on them, even though you want to get rid of them?

Donald Trump: I’m saying that they know the system right now, but we’re going to phase that out. You have to phase it out.

 Lesley Stahl: Let’s talk about your cabinet.

 Donald Trump: OK.

 Lesley Stahl: Have you made any decisions?

 Donald Trump: Yes.

Lesley Stahl: Tell us.

Donald Trump: Well, I can’t tell you that, but I have made--

Lesley Stahl: Oh, come on—

Donald Trump: You know the amazing thing to show you the incredible nature of our country. First of all, every major leader and probably less than major le- has called me, I’ve spoken to many of them and I’ll call the rest of them, but and I said, “Boy, this really shows you how powerful our country is.” France and U.K. and I mean everybody, all over Asia—and very, just to congratulate. But it really shows the power of our country.

Lesley Stahl: One of the things you’re going to obviously get an opportunity to do, is name someone to the Supreme Court. And I assume you’ll do that quickly?

Donald Trump: Yes. Very important.

Lesley Stahl: During the campaign, you said that you would appoint justices who were against abortion rights. Will you appoint-- are you looking to appoint a justice who wants to overturn Roe v. Wade?

Donald Trump: So look, here’s what’s going to happen-- I’m going to-- I’m pro-life. The judges will be pro-life. They’ll be very—

Lesley Stahl: But what about overturning this law--

Donald Trump: Well, there are a couple of things. They’ll be pro-life, they’ll be-- in terms of the whole gun situation, we know the Second Amendment and everybody’s talking about the Second Amendment and they’re trying to dice it up and change it, they’re going to be very pro-Second Amendment. But having to do with abortion if it ever were overturned, it would go back to the states. So it would go back to the states and--

 Lesley Stahl: Yeah, but then some women won’t be able to get an abortion?

 Donald Trump: No, it’ll go back to the states.

Lesley Stahl: By state—no some --

 Donald Trump: Yeah.

 Donald Trump: Yeah, well, they’ll perhaps have to go, they’ll have to go to another state.

 Lesley Stahl: And that’s OK?

Donald Trump: Well, we’ll see what happens. It’s got a long way to go, just so you understand. That has a long, long way to go.

 Lesley Stahl: Are you in any way intimidated, scared about this enormous burden, the gravity of what you’re taking on?

 Donald Trump: No.

 Lesley Stahl: Not at all?

 Donald Trump: I respect it. But I’m not scared by it.

Lesley Stahl: Now you’re not scared, but there are people, Americans, who are scared and some of them are demonstrating right now, demonstrating against you, against your rhetoric--

Donald Trump: That’s only because they don’t know me. I really believe that’s only because--

Lesley Stahl: Well, they listened to you in the campaign and that’s--

Donald Trump: I just don’t think they know me.

 Lesley Stahl: Well, what do you think they’re demonstrating against?

Donald Trump: Well, I think in some cases, you have professional protesters. And we had it-- if you look at WikiLeaks, we had--

 Lesley Stahl: You think those people down there are—

 Donald Trump: Well Lesley—

 Lesley Stahl: are professional?

 Donald Trump: Oh, I think some of them will be professional, yeah--

Lesley Stahl: OK, but what about – they’re in every city.

Lesley Stahl: When they demonstrate against you and there are signs out there, I mean, don’t you say to yourself, I guess you don’t, you know, do I have to worry about this? Do I have to go out and assuage them? Do I have to tell them not to be afraid? They’re afraid.

 Donald Trump: I would tell them don’t be afraid, absolutely.

 Lesley Stahl: But that’s not what you’re saying, I said it-

 Donald Trump: Oh, I think, no, no, I think-- I am saying it, I’ve been saying it.

 Lesley Stahl: OK.

Donald Trump: Don’t be afraid. We are going to bring our country back. But certainly, don’t be afraid. You know, we just had an election and sort of like you have to be given a little time. I mean, people are protesting. If Hillary had won and if my people went out and protested, everybody would say, “Oh, that’s a terrible thing.” And it would have been a much different attitude. There is a different attitude. You know, there is a double standard here.

It has been five full days since the election and anti-Trump demonstrations, driven in part by Hillary Clinton’s edge in the popular vote, have been significant.

When we interviewed him on Friday afternoon Mr. Trump said he had not heard about some of the acts of violence that are popping up in his name… or against his supporters. 

Nor he said had he heard about reports of racial slurs and personal threats against African Americans, Latinos and gays by some of his supporters.

Donald Trump: I am very surprised to hear that-- I hate to hear that, I mean I hate to hear that--

Lesley Stahl: But you do hear it?

Donald Trump: I don’t hear it—I saw, I saw one or two instances…

Lesley Stahl: On social media?

Donald Trump: But I think it’s a very small amount. Again, I think it’s--

Lesley Stahl: Do you want to say anything to those people?

Donald Trump: I would say don’t do it, that’s terrible, ‘cause I’m gonna bring this country together.

 Lesley Stahl: They’re harassing Latinos, Muslims--

Donald Trump: I am so saddened to hear that. And I say, “Stop it.” If it-- if it helps. I will say this, and I will say right to the cameras: Stop it.

During the campaign Mr. Trump said he would appoint a special prosecutor to look into Hillary Clinton’s email issue.

So we asked him if he plans to carry that out.

That part of the interview and a discussion with the next first lady, Melania Trump, when we come back.

On Friday, Donald Trump announced that he was changing the head of his transition team. Governor Chris Christie was replaced by Vice President-elect Mike Pence. Mr. Trump also added his three older children to the transition team. 

Between now and Inauguration Day, the team must fill the new administration with 4,000 political appointees. That’s 4,000 new hires in just nine weeks.

When we talked to Donald Trump on Friday, the enormity and gravity of his new role was just sinking in.  He was subdued.  We wondered if as president he planned to temper his rhetoric, lower the flame.

Lesley Stahl: I want to ask you about the tweet that you put out, I think it was last night or the night before, about these demonstrators.

Donald Trump: Yeah.

Lesley Stahl: You said that they were professionals—and you said it was unfair.

Donald Trump: I said some of them. Some of them are --

Lesley Stahl: But are you going to be tweeting and whatever you’re upset about just put out there when you’re president?

Donald Trump: So it’s a modern form of communication, between Face-- you know, Facebook and Twitter and I guess Instagram, I have 28 million people. 28 million people--

Lesley Stahl: So you are going to keep it up?

Donald Trump: It’s a great form of communication. Now, do I say I’ll give it up entirely and throw out, that’s a tremendous form-- I pick up-- I’m picking up now, I think I picked up yesterday 100,000 people. I’m not saying I love it, but it does get the word out. When you give me a bad story or when you give me an inaccurate story or when somebody other than you and another network, or whatever, ‘cause of course, CBS would never do a thing like that right? I have a method of fighting back. That’s very tough--

Lesley Stahl: But you’re going to do that as president?

Donald Trump: I’m going to do very restrained, if I use it at all, I’m going to do very restrained. I find it tremendous. It’s a modern form of communication. There should be nothing you should be ashamed of. It’s-- it’s where it’s at. I-- I do believe this, I really believe that, um-- the fact that I have such power in terms of numbers with Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, et cetera, I think it helped me win all of these races where they’re spending much more money than I spent. You know, I spent my money. A lot of my money. And I won. I think that social media has more power than the money they spent, and I think maybe to a certain extent, I proved that.

Lesley Stahl: Are you going to ask for a special prosecutor to investigate Hillary Clinton over her emails? And are you, as you had said to her face, going to try and put her in jail?

Donald Trump: Well, I’ll tell you what I’m going to do, I’m going to think about it. Um, I feel that I want to focus on jobs, I want to focus on healthcare, I want to focus on the border and immigration and doing a really great immigration bill. We want to have a great immigration bill. And I want to focus on all of these other things that we’ve been talking about.

Lesley Stahl: You-- you know, you--

Donald Trump: And get the country straightened away.

Lesley Stahl: You called her “crooked Hillary,” said you wanted to get in jail, your people in your audiences kept saying, “Lock em’ up.”

Donald Trump: Yeah. She did--

Lesley Stahl: Do you—

Donald Trump: She did some bad things, I mean she did some bad things--

Lesley Stahl: I know, but a special prosecutor? You think you might…

Donald Trump: I don’t want to hurt them. I don’t want to hurt them. They’re, they’re good people. I don’t want to hurt them. And I will give you a very, very good and definitive answer the next time we do 60 Minutes together.

With that…

[Donald Trump: You look great, honey.]

We were joined by the next first lady, Melania Trump. She’ll be only the second foreign-born first lady. She’s from Slovenia. John Quincy Adams’ wife Louisa was the first. 

Lesley Stahl: You know, I asked your husband if he was at all intimidated and scared about what lies ahead. The enormity. You’re about to be first lady. Are you a little nervous about it? Little tense? A little--

Melania Trump: Well, there is a lot of responsibilities. And it’s-- a lot of work needs to be done. And-- it’s-- your-- stuff on your shoulders. And-- we will take care of it-- day by day. I will stay true to myself. I’m very strong and um-- tough and confident. And I will listen myself and I will do what is right and what feels to my heart.

Lesley Stahl: What kind of a first lady do you think she’s going to be?

Donald Trump: She will be terrific. She is very strong and very confident, but she’s very warm. And I think she’ll have a platform where she’ll really be able to do a lot of good. And that’s what she wants to do.

Lesley Stahl: You know, first ladies usually have a cause. And you’ve already said you’re interested in speaking out against bullying on social media.

Melania Trump: I think it’s very important because a lot of children and teenagers are getting hurt. And we need to teach them how to talk to each other, how to treat each other and to, to be able to connect with each other on the right way.

It’s an ironic choice since her own husband sent out a stream of pretty nasty tweets during the campaign.

Lesley Stahl: What about your husband’s tweeting?

Melania Trump: Well, sometimes he-- it got him in trouble. But it helped a lot as well. He had unbelievable following.

Lesley Stahl: So you never say to him, “Come on”?

Melania Trump: I did.

Donald Trump: She does--

Melania Trump: I--

Melania Trump: You know, of course, I did many times, from the beginning of the campaign. But…

Lesley Stahl: Does he listen to you?

Melania Trump: Sometimes he listens, sometimes he doesn’t--

Donald Trump: I’m not a big tweeter. I mean, I don’t do too many, but they hit home. And they have to get a point across.

Lesley Stahl: If he does something that you think crossed a line, will you tell him?

Melania Trump: Yes, I tell him all the time.

Lesley Stahl: All the time?

Melania Trump: All the time.

Lesley Stahl: And does--

Melania Trump: And--

Lesley Stahl: --he listen? Does he--

Melania Trump: I think he hears me. But he will do what he wants to do on the end. He’s an adult. He knows the consequences. And I give him my opinion. And he could do whatever he likes with it.

Lesley Stahl: Did you ask Melania sort of, for permission, in a way, to run for president? Did you get her approval?

Donald Trump: Well, I actually sat down with Melania and my whole family and we talked about it. Don, Ivanka, Eric, Tiffany. Barron to a lesser extent, but Barron too. Um, because in a way he’s affected every bit as much. Maybe more.

Lesley Stahl: Maybe more.

Donald Trump: And so we all had a dinner and I said, “I would like to do this. I think I can do a great job.” And I wanted to get, number one, a consensus and number two, ideally, their permission. And they all agreed.

Lesley Stahl: Your son Barron, what is he, 10?

Melania Trump: 10.

Lesley Stahl: 10. He was on camera the whole time you were giving your acceptance speech. Does he get it? Does he know?

Melania Trump: He knows. He knows--

Lesley Stahl: He knows?

Melania Trump: --what’s going on. And, he’s very proud of his dad.

Lesley Stahl: Now-- you met with Michelle Obama yesterday. Was there any awkwardness, given--

Melania Trump: No.

Lesley Stahl: --what everybody was saying about everybody in the campaign?

Melania Trump: No. I didn’t feel it.

Lesley Stahl: Not at all?

Melania Trump: No.

Lesley Stahl: Tell us about the meeting.

Melania Trump: Yes, she was a gracious host. We had a great time and we talk about raising children in the White House. She was very warm and very nice.

Lesley Stahl: You know, she raised the two kids in the White House. But she had her mother living there. That’s an enormous help. Your parents are here, right?

Melania Trump: They’re here.

Lesley Stahl: Will they go to Washington with you?

Melania Trump: They might. We will see. We will discuss that.

Lesley Stahl: Are you prepared, both of you, for the lack of privacy and the intense scrutiny? And you know, first ladies are really criticized if one little hair’s out of place. Are you both prepared for this?

Melania Trump: We are used to it.

Donald Trump: I will say, it is on a different scale now, ‘cause I’ve had a lot. But I’ve never had anything like this.

Lesley Stahl: You won’t be able to walk down the street--

Melania Trump: I didn’t do that for two years already, so you know, it will just continue. It’s another level, but it will continue.

At that point, the discussion turned back to some of the thornier issues Mr. Trump faces.

Lesley Stahl: FBI director James Comey. Are you going to ask for his resignation?

Donald Trump: I think that I would rather not comment on that yet. I don’t-- I haven’t made up my mind. I respect him a lot. I respect the FBI a lot. I think --

Lesley Stahl: Even though they leak so much?

Donald Trump: Well, there’s been a lotta leaking, there’s no question about that. But I would certainly like to talk to him. And see him. This is a tough time for him. And I would like to talk to him before I’d answer a question like that.

Lesley Stahl: Sounds like you’re not sure.

Donald Trump: Well, sure, I’m not sure. I’d wanna see, you know, he may have had very good reasons for doing what he did.

Lesley Stahl: Are you gonna release your tax returns?

Donald Trump: At the appropriate time, I will release them. But right now I’m under routine audit. Nobody cares. The only one who cares is, you know, you and a few people that asked that question. Obviously, the public didn’t care because I won the election very easily. So they don’t care. I never thought they did care.

Lesley Stahl: Now, for months, you were running around saying that the system is rigged, the whole thing was rigged. You tweeted once that the Electoral College is a disaster for democracy.

Donald Trump: I do.

Lesley Stahl: So do you still think it’s rigged?

Donald Trump: Well, I think the electoral ca-- look, I won with the Electoral College.

Lesley Stahl: Exactly.But do you think--

Donald Trump: You know, it’s--

Lesley Stahl: --it’s rigged?

Donald Trump: Yeah, some of the election locations are. Some of the system is. I hated--

Lesley Stahl: Even though you won you’re saying that--

Donald Trump: I hated-- well, you know, I’m not going to change my mind just because I won. But I would rather see it where you went with simple votes. You know, you get 100 million votes and somebody else gets 90 million votes and you win. There’s a reason for doing this because it brings all the states into play. Electoral College and there’s something very good about that. But this is a different system. But I respect it. I do respect the system.

Lesley Stahl: What about vacations? You’re not going to take any vacations? You’ve said that.

Donald Trump: We have so much work. There’s so much work to be done. And I want to get it done for the people. I want to get it done. We’re lowering taxes, we’re taking care of health care. I mean, there’s just so much to be done. So I don’t think we’ll be very big on vacations, no.

Lesley Stahl: Are you gonna take the salary, the president’s salary?

Donald Trump: Well, I’ve never commented on this, but the answer is no. I think I have to by law take $1, so I’ll take $1 a year. But it’s a -- I don’t even know what it is.

Donald Trump: Do you know what the salary is?

Lesley Stahl: $400,000 you’re giving up.

Donald Trump: No, I’m not gonna take the salary. I’m not taking it.

In a moment, the Trump children join us and we will ask the president-elect where he stands on gay marriage, Obamacare, and ISIS.

On Tuesday, Donald Trump reached deep into America’s ranks of the discouraged and neglected, a largely white constituency.  They feel their America hasn’t been great for a long time. And they accepted a promise to make it great again.

But Mr. Trump’s appeal wasn’t just to the disaffected. A map on election night was a sea of red, as he won support across the traditionally Republican South, but also deep into what used to be the blue wall of the Midwest.

Hillary Clinton came up short among her own supporters in large cities and affluent suburbs, among minorities and especially women.  Just 51 percent of college-educated white women voted to make her the first female president.  Her base didn’t come with the enthusiasm and the turnout she needed to fend off Donald Trump’s new and energized coalition.

On Friday Mr. Trump’s four older children – Tiffany, Donald, Jr., Eric And Ivanka -- joined us to talk about their father’s surprising victory.

Lesley Stahl: Set the scene. It’s election night. Your father-- no one’s expecting him to win and it begins to dawn on you. Tell us about being in that room.

Eric Trump: You start to see the states falling. You start seeing Florida come in and he was declared the winner. And then you saw Ohio, you saw North Carolina. You saw Pennsylvania. You saw Wisconsin. I mean, you saw all these great states – they’re all falling. And I think it was when we got Pennsylvania that we knew. And it was amazing. We were high fiving and we were all hugging as a family. And I actually think our father was the calmest of all of us even though he was really obviously the center of attention. So--

Lesley Stahl: He went quiet is what I heard.

Eric Trump: --it’s-- it’s--

Lesley Stahl: --is what I heard.

Eric Trump: --it’s a moment I’ll never forget, I can tell you that. I mean, the team was around and everybody’s cheering. And it was just-- it was-- it was a beautiful night.

Ivanka Trump: It is hard to put into words the experience or the emotion when your father becomes president of the United States of America. We had enormous pride, joy. It’s incredibly exciting. And we’re very grateful for the opportunity. And we take that opportunity very seriously.

Lesley Stahl: Tiffany?

Tiffany Trump: I mean I don’t think we can really prepare for our father becoming president. But we were all there together with everyone that’s worked so hard. And my dad has worked so hard. And it’s just – it’s really awe-inspiring.

At some point that night and into the next day, calls from well-wishers started pouring in – including, Mr. Trump told us, from both ex-presidents Bush. Neither of whom supported him in the campaign.

Lesley Stahl: What did the b=Bushes say when they called you?

Donald Trump: Well, it was very interesting. I got a call from Father Bush, who is a wonderful man. And he just said, “Congratulations. It was an amazing campaign.” And then I got a call from George and he said-- “Congratulations. It was great.”  And, you know, look, it’s-- it’s a tough situation. I went to war with Jeb. And Jeb’s a nice guy, but it was a nasty campaign. It was a nasty campaign. And, I mean, I’m disappointed in one thing. He signed a pledge and I don’t know how you sign a pledge and then you don’t honor it. It was a rough primary. It’s a rough primary. Although I think the general was probably just as tough. Probably as a combination, it was the roughest ever.

Lesley Stahl: Ivanka, you said that your father’s changed in the campaign. How has he changed?

Ivanka Trump: I think it’s impossible to go through this journey and not change for the better. You meet-- and in my father’s case, literally millions of Americans, and they speak to you with a candor about their struggles, their challenges. They share with you their most intimate stories. So you connect with people in a different way. And you grow.

Lesley Stahl: Do you think your father’s changed?

Eric Trump: I think as a family, we’ve changed, to tell you the truth. I mean, how big this platform is, is incredible. And I have to say, one of the most rewarding things of my life, and I can speak on behalf of really all of us, it’s fighting by our father’s side every single day as you’ve gone through a grueling, grueling process like this.

Lesley Stahl: Don, did you discover something about your father that you didn’t know before?

Donald Trump, Jr.: You know-- we-- we know him pretty well. And we’ve got to, you know, be by his side for many years, both as a father and in business. So, you know-- the tenacity that he’s always shown-- was just there. But it was just so much more. When I was watching him working 20-hour days, doing seven major speeches to tens of thousands of people and just saying, “Well, it wasn’t triage. Which state are we gonna do today,” it’s, “We’re just gonna do ‘em all. We’re gonna speak to all of these people.” And I think people saw that energy. They fed off that energy. That energy was so much of the movement-- that he was able to create. And, you know-- it-- it only furthered what I already knew.

Lesley Stahl: I want to ask you all about something that’s going on right now around the country. A lot of people are afraid. They’re really afraid. African Americans think there’s a target on their back. Muslims are terrified.

Donald Trump: I think it’s horrible if that’s happening. I think it’s built up by the press because, frankly, they’ll take every single little incident that they can find in this country, which could’ve been there before. If I weren’t even around doing this, and they’ll make into an event because that’s the way the press is.

Lesley Stahl: Do any of you want to say anything about this fear that’s out there?

Donald Trump, Jr.: I-- I think the fears, you know, while they may be there, some fabricated, some not-- are totally unfounded.

Lesley Stahl: One of the groups that’s expressing fear are the LGBTQ group. You--

Donald Trump: And yet I mentioned them at the Republican National Convention. And--

Lesley Stahl: You did.

Donald Trump: Everybody said, “That was so great.” I have been, you know, I’ve been-a supporter.

Lesley Stahl: Well, I guess the issue for them is marriage equality. Do you support marriage equality?

Donald Trump: It-- it’s irrelevant because it was already settled. It’s law. It was settled in the Supreme Court. I mean it’s done.

Lesley Stahl: So even if you appoint a judge that--

Donald Trump: It’s done. It-- you have-- these cases have gone to the Supreme Court. They’ve been settled. And, I’m fine with that.

Lesley Stahl: One of the issues that has come up in the campaign is your father’s temperament. And he has himself has said, “If someone insults me or says something unkind about me, I’m gonna strike back.” And now people are saying, “Well, maybe he should kinda soften that, control that a little.” What-- how do you think he’s going to comport himself as president?

Eric Trump: I think very presidential. At the same time, my father, if he needs to be a fighter, he can be a fighter. And I think this country, quite frankly, needs a fighter. And I think that’s what this country elected.

Donald Trump: They spent $1 billion against me on the word “Temperament.” It was given by Madison Avenue. And they thought that, by temperament, they could maybe, you know, win the election. Obviously, it didn’t work because we’re here and they’re not. And I think my strongest asset is my temperament because I have a temperament where we win and we’re going to start winning again. We’re going to win on trade, we’re going to win at the borders, we’re going to knock out ISIS.

Lesley Stahl: You have said that you’re gonna destroy ISIS. Now, how are you going to?

Donald Trump: I don’t tell you that. I don’t tell you that.

Lesley Stahl: Yeah, but what can --

Donald Trump: I’m not like the people going in right now and fighting Mosul and they announced it four months before they went into Mosul and everybody now is -- it’s a tough fight because, number one, the people from the --leaders of ISIS have left. What do you-- why do I have to tell you that?

Lesley Stahl: Troops on the ground?

Donald Trump: I’m not gonna say anything. I don’t want to tell them anything. I don’t want to tell anybody anything.

Lesley Stahl: Yeah, but what about—the American people.

Donald Trump: I wanna do the job. We have some great generals. We have great generals.

Lesley Stahl: You said you knew more than the generals about ISIS

Donald Trump: Well, I’ll be honest with you, I probably do because look at the job they’ve done. OK, look at the job they’ve done. They haven’t done the job. Now, maybe it’s leadership, maybe it’s something else. Who knows? All I can tell you is we’re going to get rid of ISIS.

Lesley Stahl: Let me ask you about Obamacare, which you say you’re going to repeal and replace. When you replace it, are you going to make sure that people with pre-conditions are still covered?

Donald Trump: Yes. Because it happens to be one of the strongest assets.

Lesley Stahl: You’re going to keep that?

Donald Trump: Also, with the children living with their parents for an extended period, we’re gonna--

Lesley Stahl: You’re gonna keep that--

Donald Trump: Very much try and keep that. Adds cost, but it’s very much something we’re going to try and keep.

Lesley Stahl: And there’s going to be a period if you repeal it and before you replace it, when millions of people could lose -– no?

Donald Trump: No, we’re going to do it simultaneously. It’ll be just fine. We’re not going to have, like, a two-day period and we’re not going to have a two-year period where there’s nothing. It will be repealed and replaced. And we’ll know. And it’ll be great health care for much less money. So it’ll be better health care, much better, for less money. Not a bad combination.

Lesley Stahl: Roles during the administration. Any of you want a job in your father’s administration?

Eric Trump: So we have an amazing company. You know, one of, I think, the fortunate things for my father and our father is that he was able to step out of the company to run for commander-in-chief. And I think he’s going to rely on us more than ever. And--

Lesley Stahl: So you’ll stay up here?

Eric Trump: So we’ll-- we’ll-- we’ll be in New York and we’ll take care of the business. I think we’re going to have a lot of fun doing it. And we’re going to make him very proud.

Lesley Stahl: People think that you’re going to be part of the administration, Ivanka.

Ivanka Trump: I’m-- no. I’m going to be a daughter. But I’ve-- I’ve said throughout the campaign that I am very passionate about certain issues. And that I want to fight for them.

Lesley Stahl: But you won’t be inside--

Ivanka Trump: Wage equality, childcare. These are things that are very important for me. I’m very passionate about education. Really promoting more opportunities for women. So you know, there’re a lot of things that I feel deeply, strongly about. But not in a formal administrative capacity.

Lesley Stahl: Let me ask whether any of you think that the campaign has hurt the Trump brand.

Ivanka Trump: I don’t think it matters. This is so much more important. And more serious. And-- so th-- I-- I-- you know, that’s the focus.

Donald Trump: I think what Ivanka trying to say, “Who cares? Who cares?” This is big league stuff. This is-- this is our country. Our country is going bad. We’re going to save our country. I don’t care about hotel occupancy. It’s peanuts compared to what we’re doing. Health care, making people better. It’s unfair what’s happened to the people of our country and we’re going to change it. As simple as that.

60 Minutes | President-Elect Trump On 60 Minutes | 161113

Friday, November 11, 2016

The Story of China 4

【BBC】中国故事 | 第四集:明朝 | dm |【中英双语】

The Story of China 3

【BBC】中国故事 | 第三集:盛世中华 | dm |【中英双语】

Wednesday, November 9, 2016

The Story of China 2

【BBC】中国故事 | 第二集:丝路之魂 | dm |【中英双语】

The Story of China 1

中华的故事 | 第一集:祖先 |【BBC】| qq:yk:dm |【中英】

Tuesday, October 18, 2016

How Palestine Became Colonized

telesur | The Empire Files | How Palestine Became Colonized | Untold History of Palestine & Israel | 160928

Monday, October 17, 2016

US Election: Socialist Woman Running for President

telesur | The Empire Files | Socialist Woman Running for President | Gloria La Riva for President | 161016

Sunday, October 16, 2016

Russia's First Year Of Operations In Syria

Written and produced by SF Team: J.Hawk, Daniel Deiss, Edwin Watson

To put Russia’s one year of peacemaking operations in Syria in perspective, one should think back to what the situation was like on the eve of the arrival of the first Russian aircraft, support personnel, military advisors, and military equipment, to Syria. By all accounts, Syrian government forces were in retreat on all fronts, being pushed back in Raqqa, Aleppo, Hama, Idlib, and Latakia provinces. The Islamic State, the Jabhat al-Nusra, the so-called “Free Syrian Army”, and many other smaller rebel formations were conquering towns and military bases, with their advance triggering a flood of refugees into Turkey, Jordan, and other countries. Syria stood practically alone, with some Iranian assistance for sure, against a seemingly motley group of rebel formations which, however, enjoyed generous financial, military, and even operational support by several outside powers, including the United States, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey, with Jordan and Israel maintaining a state of benevolent neutrality toward the rebels. In September of 2015, the days of the Assad government seemed numbered.

In September of 2016, virtually nobody expects the Assad government to fall. Even the US Secretary of State John Kerry, in conversations with Syrian opposition which were made available to US media, acknowledged that the anti-Syrian coalition has been outmaneuvered to the point that the long-standing US/NATO/EU mantra of “Assad must go” has become obsolete. To the extent that nearly everyone recognizes that the world is now multipolar, Russia’s effective use of military power in Syria is the single most important factor behind that shift. How did Russia manage to effect such a dramatic change in spite of seemingly overwhelming odds against it, in what is becoming a classic exercise in the use of military force?

The first secret of its success was the strict adherence to international law.To put it bluntly, US military operations on or over Syria’s territory have no legal justification at all. Similarly, the support of the rebel groups listed above, most of whom allegedly pursue a radical agenda, employ large numbers of mercenaries, and don’t hesitate from committing atrocities to impose alien political dogmas, violates all manner of fundamental international norms, not the least of which are the concept of national sovereignty and self-determination. In contrast, Russian operations are being conducted at the invitation of the sole internationally recognized government of Syria. If the comprehensive campaign of disinformation and propaganda that is intended to shield Western audiences from the reality of the war in Syria is any indication, Western governments are keenly aware of the immorality and illegality of their actions. And so is the rest of the world.

Secondly, and also in stark contrast with the US and NATO uses of military power, Russia’s leadership appears to be aware of both the limits of the country’s power and of what can be accomplished using solely military force. There is no trace of hubris, of “Russian exceptionalist” rhetoric in either the political aims being pursued, or the military means which are used to accomplish them. In military sense, the goal of the operation is a modest one–the denial of victory to the West-backed jihadist coalition. Once that objective is achieved, once every major anti-Syrian actor acknowledges that Syria’s legitimate government or Russia’s military presence in Syria cannot be dislodged by any combination of political and military measures, they will be forced to negotiate a peace settlement that will preserve both the territorial and political integrity of the Syrian state.

To be sure, that modest military objective did require a wide range of measures to accomplish. The most urgent was the refashioning of the crumbling Syrian Arab Army into a military force capable of recovering the lost territories. While in the immediate term that task could be addressed by an aggressive bombing campaign that took the jihadists, unaccustomed to being opposed by a modern air force, by surprise. But the air campaign was not intended to defeat the jihadists by itself, but rather gain time for the re-equipment and re-training efforts to bear fruit, which they began to by the first months of 2016. Moreover, in the event the jihadists were expecting to outlast Syrian and Russian forces, the campaign of aerial interdiction of rebel supply routes and the Islamic State’s oil infrastructure was aimed at undermining the opposition’s long-term ability to sustain the war effort.

However, the jihadists and wild geeze aren’t the most dangerous foes faced by Syria. The Russian military had to minimize the prospect of a direct NATO military operation against the Syrian military and government that, as in the case of Libya, would have been spearheaded by US airpower. The goal of conventional deterrence against both air and land NATO incursions was achieved, though only after the loss of one Su-24 bomber, treacherously shot down over Syria by Turkish fighters, by the deployment of advanced S-400 air defense systems, Su-35 fighters, and Iskander-M tactical ballistic missiles, and the demonstration of the power of Russia’s air- and sea-launched cruise missiles which would have struck US air bases throughout the Middle East in the event of any escalation.

This effort has not been without a cost. 20 Russian servicemembers have lost their lives in Syria in the space of last year. The Russian military has also lost, in addition to the Su-24 bomber, several attack and transport helicopters

The effect, however, has been nothing short of spectacular. Rebel forces are in retreat on nearly every important sector of the front, and even the crucial struggle for Aleppo, which has reached the scale of a general battle that will decide the future of Syria, has decisively swung in Syria’s favor. Outside Syria, both friend and foe have taken note. Russia’s engagement has served as a veritable “seed capital” that drew larger contingents of Iranian Revolutionary Guards, Iraq’s Shia militias, and Lebanon’s Hezbollah, into the fray. Turkey has opted for what amounts to a negotiated “separate peace” with Russia and Syria in exchange for a free hand to focus on the Kurdish threat to its own sovereignty. Even the US, whose leaders are perennially invoking “Plan Bs” in an effort to intimidate Russia, is finding itself without viable policy options. While the war is still far from over, after one year of intervention all the political and military trends in Syria are now in a positive direction.

South Front | Russia's First Year Of Operations In Syria

Saturday, October 15, 2016

Philippines & Duterte's Policies

CCTV | The Heat | Philippines & Duterte's Policies | 161012

Thursday, October 13, 2016

BN: US 'False Flag' Against Russia

Brother Nathanael | Oct 2016

Wednesday, October 12, 2016

What You Are Not Being Told About the Afghanistan War

The Corbett Report | What You Are Not Being Told About the Afghanistan War | vd | Oct 2016

Corbett: Crisis of Science

July 30, 2016

The Crisis of Science

By James Corbett

You may have heard of "the crisis of science" recently. That there is something massively wrong with the way science is being conducted these days is not a fringe anti-science idea anymore. It's being discussed in lamestream milquetoast publications like The Washington Post, The Economist and The Times Higher Education Supplement, and even mainstream science publications like Scientific American, Nature and phys.org.

So what is the problem? And how bad is it, really? And what does it mean for an increasingly tech-dependent society that something is rotten in the state of science? Let's take a look at the problems facing modern science and what is at the root of it all.

Irreproducibility

Reproducibility is one of the bedrocks of the scientific method. In a nutshell, an experiment is reproducible if independent researchers can run the same experiment and get the same results at a later time and date. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand why this is important. If an experiment is truly revealing some fundamental truth about the world then that experiment should yield the same results under the same conditions anywhere and any time (all other things being equal).

Well, not all things are equal.

The Center for Open Science led a team of 240 researchers who volunteered to try to reproduce the results of 100 psychological experiments. These experiments had all been published in three of the most prestigious psychology journals. The results, published last year in a paper on "Estimating the Reproducibility of Psychological Science," were abysmal. Only 39 of the experimental results could be reproduced.

Worse yet for the boosters of scientific infallibility, these results are not confined to the realm of psychology. In 2011 Nature published a paper showing that researchers were only able to reproduce between 20 and 25 per cent of 67 published preclinical drug studies. They published another paper the next year with an even worse result: researchers could only reproduce six of a total of 53 "landmark" cancer studies. That's a reproducibility rate of 11%.

These studies alone are persuasive, but the cherry on top came this past May when Nature published the results of a survey of over 1500 scientists finding fully 70% of them had tried and failed to reproduce published experimental results at some point. The poll covered researchers from a range of disciplines, from physicists and chemists to earth and environmental scientists to medical researchers and assorted others.

These findings come as no surprise to those who have been ringing the alarm bell about irreproducibility for years. Like John Ioannidis. He rocked the scientific community with his 2005 paper "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False." At the time that paper was published there was a sense that a lot of "landmark" study results were being overturned or disproven, but there was little hard data on how widespread the reproducibility problem was. So what is Ioannidis' reaction to these recent findings backing up his thesis? "I wish I had been proven wrong."

So what's going on here? Why are so many reputable journals publishing "landmark" studies that turn out to be irreproducible? Well, there's always...

Fraud

We are taught to believe that scientists are a special breed. Motivated only by their curiosity about the universe, these pure-hearted truthseekers would never dream of publishing a false result or deliberately mislead others.

Of course that's total rubbish. As James Evan Pilato and I reported on New World Next Week last month, that same Nature survey that showed that 70% of researchers had tried and failed to reproduce published experimental results also showed that fully 40% of them believed that fraud was "always or often" the cause.

Again, the problem of scientific fraud is nothing new. As the Dictionary of American History relates:

"Before 1980, only a handful of accusations of scientific fraud were ever proven. In 1981, however, following press reports of a 'crime wave' of scientific fraud, the U.S. House of Representatives conducted the first-ever congressional hearings on the subject. These hearings revealed a wide gap in perception of the magnitude of the problem. Prominent scientists testified that fraud in science was rare; that individual allegations were best investigated on an ad hoc, case-by-case basis; and that government intrusion into the evaluation of scientific fraud would place bureaucrats in charge of declaring scientific truth. Prominent journalists and other critics, in contrast, testified that many cases of scientific fraud had likely gone undetected; that the scientific system of self-policing responded inadequately to fraud; and that the government's substantial financial investment in basic scientific research necessitated undertaking measures to ensure the integrity of the scientific enterprise."

As it turned out, the critics were right. Congress acted the only way Congress can in such cases: by passing more legislation! They enacted the Health Research Extension Act of 1985 which created a new federal agency to respond to allegations of scientific fraud.

But (surprise, surprise!) more government didn't solve the problem for some reason. Despite the best efforts of the government's Office of Research Integrity, fraud is still rampant in the scientific community.

So if it isn't pure-hearted curiosity about the world that is motivating researchers to fudge their results, why do they do it?

Publish or perish

We've all heard of "publish or perish" by now. It means that only researchers who have a steady flow of published papers to their name are considered for the plush positions in modern-day academia.

This pressure isn't some abstract or unstated force; it is direct and explicit. Until recently the medical department at London's Imperial College told researchers that their target was to "publish three papers per annum including one in a prestigious journal with an impact factor of at least five." Similar guidelines and quotas are enacted in departments throughout academia.

And so, like any quota-based system, people will find a way to cheat their way to the quota. Some attach their names to work they have little to do with. Others publish in pay-to-play journals that will publish anything for a small fee. And others simply fudge their data until they get a result that will grab headlines and earn a spot in a high-profile journal.

It's easy to see how fraudulent or irreproducible data results from this pressure. The pressure to publish in turn puts pressure on researchers to produce data that will be "new" and "unexpected." A study finding that drinking 5 cups of coffee a day increases your chance of urinary tract cancer (or decreases your chance of stroke) is infinitely more interesting (and thus publishable) than a study finding mixed results, or no discernible effect. So studies finding a surprising result (or ones that can be manipulated into showing surprising results) will be published and those with negative results will not. This makes it much harder for future scientists to get an accurate assessment of the state of research in any given field, since untold numbers of experiments with negative results never get published, and thus never see the light of day.

This has led to a growing movement calling on journals to publish more studies with negative results. Journals like New Negatives in Plant Science and the Journal of Negative Results are seeking to address this imbalance by publishing only "hypothesis-driven, scientifically sound studies that describe unexpected, controversial, dissenting, and/or null (negative) results."

This is obviously an important step toward correcting some of the bias that has crept in, but it doesn't address the main problem, which is...

The elephant in the room

Yes, there is an irreproducibility crisis in science. And yes, it is caused by rampant fraud and fudging of results. And yes, the fudging of results is motivated by the "publish or perish" academic environment. But what creates that environment in the first place? The answer isn't difficult to understand. It's the same thing that puts pressure on every other aspect of the economy: funding.

In order to get the big research grants, researchers have to prove their worth. In order to prove their worth, they have to publish. In order to publish, they have to come up with new and surprising results. In order to come up with new and surprising results they have to fudge their data. And when they fudge their data, their results are irreproducible. The base of this chain is the money.

Modern laboratories investigating cutting edge questions involve expensive technology and large teams of researchers. The type of labs producing truly breakthrough results in today's environment are the ones that are well funded. And there are only two ways for scientists to get big grants in our current system: big business or big government. So it should be no surprise that large corporations and politically-motivated government agencies are paying for the types of science that they want.

Want to find a way to blow the head off a mosquito with a laser-guided suborbital rocket-launching satellite? The fine folks at Raytheon or Lockheed Martin or Northrop Grumman will be more than happy to write a check!

Want to develop the next generation battlefield-deployable fully autonomous combat robot drone? Then I'm sure DARPA can scrape together some grant money for you!

Want to find a way to decentralize the power grid so that communities become self-contained and independent?...Well, too bad. There's no money in that.

So why does so much of the scientific community sign on to the GMO fraud or the climate change fraud? I can think of at least 7 trillion reasons.

The crisis of science is fundamentally a crisis in the way that science is funded. And like everything else, the answer to this problem is decentralization. Can we imagine a world of peer-to-peer science? Crowdfunded science? Open science? Well some people can. And are. But they're not getting big corporate or government money to do it.

As with so many things, we stand on the cusp of what could be a true revolution in the long-prevailing norms of our society brought about by the vast online experiment that is the internet. But don't hold your breath that fraud or corruption is going away any time soon.

原文见:这里. | | | |

Monday, October 10, 2016

9/11 Suspects: Dancing Israelis

The Corbett Report | 9/11 Suspects: Dancing Israelis | vd | Sep 11, 2016

Pepe Escobar: Silk Roads terrify Washington

Why the New Silk Roads terrify Washington

Russian President Vladimir Putin (C) looks back at U.S. President Barack Obama (L) as they arrive with Chinese President Xi Jinping (R) at an Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) Summit plenary session. File photo. © Pablo Martinez Monsivais

Almost six years ago, President Putin proposed to Germany 'the creation of a harmonious economic community stretching from Lisbon to Vladivostok.'

This idea represented an immense trade emporium uniting Russia and the EU, or, in Putin’s words, “a unified continental market with a capacity worth trillions of dollars.”

In a nutshell: Eurasia integration.

Washington panicked. The record shows how Putin’s vision – although extremely seductive to German industrialists - was eventually derailed by Washington’s controlled demolition of Ukraine.

Three years ago, in Kazakhstan and then Indonesia, President Xi Jinping expanded on Putin’s vision, proposing One Belt, One Road (OBOR), a.k.a. the New Silk Roads, enhancing the geoeconomic integration of Asia-Pacific via a vast network of highways, high-speed rail, pipelines, ports and fiber-optic cables.

In a nutshell: an even more ambitious version of Eurasia integration, benefiting two-thirds of the world population, economy and trade. The difference is that it now comes with immense financial muscle backing it up, via a Silk Road Fund, the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB), the BRICS’s New Development Bank (NDB), and an all-out commercial offensive all across Eurasia, and the official entry of the yuan in the IMF’s Special Drawing Rights; that is, the christening of the yuan as a key currency worth holding by every single emerging market central bank.

At the recent G20 in Huangzhou, President Xi clearly demonstrated how OBOR is absolutely central to the Chinese vision of how globalization should proceed. Beijing is betting that the overwhelming majority of nations across Eurasia would rather invest in, and profit from, a “win-win” economic development project than be bogged down in a lose-lose strategic game between the US and China.

And that, for the Empire of Chaos, is absolute anathema. How to possibly accept that China is winning the 21st century / New Great Game in Eurasia by building the New Silk Roads?

And don't forget the Silk Road in Syria

Few in the West have noticed, as reported by RT, that the G20 was preceded by an Eastern Economic Forum in Vladivostok. Essentially, that was yet another de facto celebration of Eurasia integration, featuring Russia, China, Japan and South Korea.

And that integration plank will soon merge with the Russia-led Eurasia Economic Union – which in itself is a sort of Russian New Silk Road.

All these roads lead to total connectivity. Take for instance cargo trains that are now regularly linking Guangzhou, the key hub in southeast China, to the logistics center in  Vorsino industrial park near Kaluga. The trip now takes just two weeks – saving no less than a full month if compared with shipping, and around 80 percent of the cost if compared with air cargo.

That’s yet another New Silk Road-style connection between China and Europe via Russia. Still another, vastly more ambitious, will be the high-speed rail expansion of the Transiberian; the Siberian Silk Road.

Then take the closer integration of China and Kazakhstan – which is also a member of the EEU. The duty-free Trans-Eurasia railway is already in effect, from Chongqing in Sichuan across Kazakhstan, Russia, Belarus and Poland all the way to Duisburg in Germany. Beijing and Astana are developing a joint free trade zone at Horgos. And in parallel, a $135 million China-Mongolia Cross-Border Economic Cooperation Zone started to be built last month.

Kazakhstan is even flirting with the ambitious idea of a Eurasian Canal from the Caspian to the Black Sea and then further on to the Mediterranean. Sooner or later Chinese construction companies will come up with a feasibility study.

A virtually invisible Washington agenda in Syria – inbuilt in the Pentagon obsession to not allow any ceasefire to work, or to prevent the fall of its “moderate rebels” in Aleppo – is to break up yet another New Silk Road hub. China has been commercially connected to Syria since the original Silk Road, which snaked through Palmyra and Damascus. Before the Syrian “Arab Spring”, Syrian businessmen were a vital presence in Yiwu, south of Shanghai, the largest wholesale center for small-sized consumer goods in the world, where they would go to buy all sorts of products in bulk to resell in the Levant.

The “American lake”

Neocon/neoliberalcon Washington is totally paralyzed in terms of formulating a response – or at least a counter-proposal - to Eurasia integration. A few solid IQs at least may understand that China’s “threat” to the US is all about economic might. Take Washington’s deep hostility towards the China-driven AIIB (Asia Infrastructure Investment Bank). Yet no amount of hardcore US lobbying prevented allies such as Germany, Britain, Australia and South Korea from joining in.

Then we had the mad dash to approve TPP – the China-excluding, NATO-on-trade arm of the pivot to Asia that was meant to be the cherry of the mostly flat Obama global economic policy cake. Yet the TPP as it stands is practically dead.

What the current geopolitical juncture spells out is the US Navy willing to go no holds barred to stop China from strategically dominating the Pacific, while TPP is deployed as a weapon to stop China dominating Asia-Pacific economically.

With the pivot to Asia configured as a tool to “deter Chinese aggression”, exceptionalists have graphically demonstrated how they are incapable of admitting the whole game is about post-ideological supply chain geopolitics. The US does not need to contain China; what it needs, badly, is key industrial, financial, commercial connection to crucial nodes across Asia to (re)build its economy.

Those were the days, in March 1949, when MacArthur could gloat, “the Pacific is now an Anglo-Saxon lake”. Even after the end of the Cold War the Pacific was a de facto American lake; the US violated Chinese naval and aerial space at will.

Now instead we have the US Army War College and the whole Think Tankland losing sleep over sophisticated Chinese missiles capable of denying US Navy access to the South China Sea. An American lake? No more.

The heart of the matter is that China has made an outstanding bet on infrastructure building – which translates into first-class connectivity to everyone – as the real global 21st century commons, way more important than “security”. After all a large part of global infrastructure still needs to be built. While China turbo-charges its role as the top global infrastructure exporter – from high-speed rail to low-cost telecom - the “indispensable” nation is stuck with a “pivoting”, perplexed, bloated military obsessed with containment.

Divide and rule those “hostile” rivals

Well, things haven’t changed much since Dr. Zbig “Grand Chessboard” Brzezinski dreaming in the late 1990s of a Chinese fragmentation from within, all the way to Obama’s 2015 National Security Strategy, which is no more than futile rhetorical nostalgia about containing Russia, China and Iran.

Thus the basket of attached myths such as “freedom of navigation” - Washington’s euphemism for perennially controlling the sea lanes that constitute China’s supply chain – as well as an apotheosis of “China aggression” incessantly merging with “Russia aggression”; after all, the Eurasia integration-driven Beijing-Moscow strategic partnership must be severed at all costs.

Why? Because US global hegemony must always be perceived as an irremovable force of nature, like death and taxes (Apple in Ireland excluded).

Twenty-four years after the Pentagon’s Defense Planning Guide, the same mindset prevails; “Our first objective is to prevent the reemergence of a new rival…to prevent any hostile power from dominating a region whose resources would, under consolidated control, be sufficient to generate global power. These regions include Western Europe, East Asia, the territory of the former Soviet Union and southwest Asia”.

Oops. Now even Dr. Zbig “Grand Chessboard” Brzezinski is terrified. How to contain these bloody silky roads with Pentagon “existential threats” China and Russia right at the heart of the action? Divide and Rule – what else?

For a confused Brzezinski, the US should“fashion a policy in which at least one of the two potentially threatening states becomes a partner in the quest for regional and then wider global stability, and thus in containing the least predictable but potentially the most likely rival to overreach. Currently, the more likely to overreach is Russia, but in the longer run it could be China.”

Have a pleasant nightmare.

Original Source: Here.

Sunday, October 9, 2016

MSM Syria Lies Need to Be Exposed

The Corbett Report | MSM Syria Lies Need to Be Exposed | vd | Oct 2016

Thursday, October 6, 2016

Syria: Another Pipeline War

Feb. 25, 2016

Syria: Another Pipeline War

Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.

The fossil fuel industry's business model is to externalize its costs by clawing in obscene subsidies and tax deductions—causing grave environmental costs, including toxic pollution and global warming. Among the other unassessed prices of the world's addiction to oil are social chaos, war, terror, the refugee crisis overseas, and the loss of democracy and civil rights abroad and at home.

As we focus on the rise of ISIS and search for the source of the savagery that took so many innocent lives in Paris and San Bernardino, we might want to look beyond the convenient explanations of religion and ideology and focus on the more complex rationales of history and oil, which mostly point the finger of blame for terrorism back at the champions of militarism, imperialism and petroleum here on our own shores.

America's unsavory record of violent interventions in Syria—obscure to the American people yet well known to Syrians—sowed fertile ground for the violent Islamic Jihadism that now complicates any effective response by our government to address the challenge of ISIS. So long as the American public and policymakers are unaware of this past, further interventions are likely to only compound the crisis. Moreover, our enemies delight in our ignorance.

As the New York Times reported in a Dec. 8, 2015 front page story, ISIS political leaders and strategic planners are working to provoke an American military intervention which, they know from experience, will flood their ranks with volunteer fighters, drown the voices of moderation and unify the Islamic world against America.

To understand this dynamic, we need to look at history from the Syrians' perspective and particularly the seeds of the current conflict. Long before our 2003 occupation of Iraq triggered the Sunni uprising that has now morphed into the Islamic State, the CIA had nurtured violent Jihadism as a Cold War weapon and freighted U.S./Syrian relationships with toxic baggage.

During the 1950's, President Eisenhower and the Dulles brothers rebuffed Soviet treaty proposals to leave the Middle East a cold war neutral zone and let Arabs rule Arabia. Instead, they mounted a clandestine war against Arab Nationalism—which CIA Director Allan Dulles equated with communism—particularly when Arab self-rule threatened oil concessions. They pumped secret American military aid to tyrants in Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Iraq and Lebanon favoring puppets with conservative Jihadist ideologies which they regarded as a reliable antidote to Soviet Marxism. At a White House meeting between the CIA's Director of Plans, Frank Wisner, and Secretary of State, John Foster Dulles, in September of 1957, Eisenhower advised the agency, “We should do everything possible to stress the 'holy war' aspect."

The CIA began its active meddling in Syria in 1949—barely a year after the agency's creation. Syrian patriots had declared war on the Nazis, expelled their Vichy French colonial rulers and crafted a fragile secularist democracy based on the American model. But in March of 1949, Syria's democratically elected president, Shukri-al-Kuwaiti, hesitated to approve the Trans Arabian Pipeline, an American project intended to connect the oil fields of Saudi Arabia to the ports of Lebanon via Syria. In his book, Legacy of Ashes, CIA historian Tim Weiner recounts that in retaliation, the CIA engineered a coup, replacing al-Kuwaiti with the CIA's handpicked dictator, a convicted swindler named Husni al-Za'im. Al-Za'im barely had time to dissolve parliament and approve the American pipeline before his countrymen deposed him, 14 weeks into his regime.

Following several counter coups in the newly destabilized country, the Syrian people again tried democracy in 1955, re-electing al-Kuwaiti and his Ba'ath Party. Al-Kuwaiti was still a Cold War neutralist but, stung by American involvement in his ouster, he now leaned toward the Soviet camp. That posture caused Dulles to declare that “Syria is ripe for a coup" and send his two coup wizards, Kim Roosevelt and Rocky Stone to Damascus.

Two years earlier, Roosevelt and Stone had orchestrated a coup in Iran against the democratically elected President Mohammed Mosaddegh after Mosaddegh tried to renegotiate the terms of Iran's lopsided contracts with the oil giant, BP. Mosaddegh was the first elected leader in Iran's 4,000 year history, and a popular champion for democracy across the developing world. Mosaddegh expelled all British diplomats after uncovering a coup attempt by UK intelligence officers working in cahoots with BP.

Mosaddegh, however, made the fatal mistake of resisting his advisors' pleas to also expel the CIA, which they correctly suspected, and was complicit in the British plot. Mosaddegh idealized the U.S. as a role model for Iran's new democracy and incapable of such perfidies. Despite Dulles' needling, President Truman had forbidden the CIA from actively joining the British caper to topple Mosaddegh.

When Eisenhower took office in January 1953, he immediately unleashed Dulles. After ousting Mosaddegh in “Operation Ajax," Stone and Roosevelt installed Shah Reza Pahlavi, who favored U.S. oil companies, but whose two decades of CIA sponsored savagery toward his own people from the Peacock throne would finally ignite the 1979 Islamic revolution that has bedeviled our foreign policy for 35 years.

Flush from his Operation Ajax “success" in Iran, Stone arrived in Damascus in April 1956 with $3 million in Syrian pounds to arm and incite Islamic militants and to bribe Syrian military officers and politicians to overthrow al-Kuwaiti's democratically elected secularist regime. Working with the Muslim Brotherhood, Stone schemed to assassinate Syria's Chief of Intelligence, its Chief of the General Staff and the Chief of the Communist Party and to engineer “national conspiracies and various strong arm" provocations in Iraq, Lebanon and Jordan that could be blamed on the Syrian Ba'athists.

The CIA's plan was to destabilize the Syrian government, and create a pretext for an invasion by Iraq and Jordan, whose governments were already under CIA control. Roosevelt forecasted that the CIA's newly installed puppet government would “rely first upon repressive measures and arbitrary exercise of power."

But all that CIA money failed to corrupt the Syrian military officers. The soldiers reported the CIA's bribery attempts to the Ba'athist regime. In response, the Syrian army invaded the American Embassy taking Stone prisoner. Following harsh interrogation, Stone made a televised confession to his roles in the Iranian coup and the CIA's aborted attempt to overthrow Syria's legitimate government.

The Syrian's ejected Stone and two U.S. Embassy staffers—the first time any American State Department diplomat was barred from an Arab country. The Eisenhower White House hollowly dismissed Stone's confession as “fabrications and slanders," a denial swallowed whole by the American press, led by the New York Times and believed by the American people, who shared Mosaddegh's idealistic view of their government.

Syria purged all politicians sympathetic to the U.S. and executed them for treason. In retaliation, the U.S. moved the Sixth Fleet to the Mediterranean, threatened war and goaded Turkey to invade Syria. The Turks assembled 50,000 troops on Syria's borders and only backed down in the face of unified opposition from the Arab League whose leaders were furious at the U.S. intervention.

Even after its expulsion, the CIA continued its secret efforts to topple Syria's democratically elected Ba'athist government. The CIA plotted with Britain's MI6 to form a “Free Syria Committee" and armed the Muslim Brotherhood to assassinate three Syrian government officials, who had helped expose “the American plot." (Matthew Jones in The 'Preferred Plan': The Anglo-American Working Group Report on Covert Action in Syria, 1957). The CIA's mischief pushed Syria even further away from the U.S. and into prolonged alliances with Russia and Egypt.

Following the second Syrian coup attempt, anti-American riots rocked the Mid-East from Lebanon to Algeria. Among the reverberations was the July 14, 1958 coup, led by the new wave of anti-American Army officers who overthrew Iraq's pro-American monarch, Nuri al-Said. The coup leaders published secret government documents, exposing Nuri al-Said as a highly paid CIA puppet. In response to American treachery, the new Iraqi government invited Soviet diplomats and economic advisers to Iraq and turned its back on the West.

Having alienated Iraq and Syria, Kim Roosevelt fled the Mid-East to work as an executive for the oil industry that he had served so well during his public service career. Roosevelt's replacement, as CIA Station Chief, James Critchfield attempted a failed assassination plot against the new Iraqi president using a toxic handkerchief. Five years later the CIA finally succeeded in deposing the Iraqi president and installing the Ba'ath Party to power in Iraq.

A charismatic young murderer named Saddam Hussein was one of the distinguished leaders of the CIA's Ba'athists team. The Ba'ath Party's Interior Minister, Said Aburish, who took office alongside Saddam Hussein, would later say, “We came to power on a CIA train." Aburish recounted that the CIA supplied Saddam and his cronies a “murder list" of people who “had to be eliminated immediately in order to ensure success."

Critchfield later acknowledged that the CIA had, in essence, “created Saddam Hussein." During the Reagan years, the CIA supplied Hussein with billions of dollars in training, Special Forces support, and weapons and battlefield intelligence knowing that he was using poisonous mustard and nerve gas and biological weapons—including anthrax obtained from the U.S. government—in his war against Iran.

Reagan and his CIA Director, Bill Casey, regarded Saddam as a potential friend to the U.S. oil industry and a sturdy barrier against the spread of Iran's Islamic Revolution. Their emissary, Donald Rumsfeld, presented Saddam with a pair of pearl-handled revolvers and a menu of chemical/biological and conventional weapons on a 1983 trip to Bagdad. At the same time, the CIA was illegally supplying Saddam's enemy—Iran—with thousands of anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles to fight Iraq, a crime made famous during the Iran Contra scandal. Jihadists from both sides later turned many of those CIA supplied weapons against the American people.

Even as America contemplates yet another violent Mid-East intervention, most Americans are unaware of the many ways that “blowback" from previous CIA blunders has helped craft the current crisis. The reverberations from decades of CIA shenanigans continue to echo across the Mid-East today in national capitals and from mosques to madras schools over the wrecked landscape of democracy and moderate Islam that the CIA helped obliterate.

In July 1956, less than two months after the CIA's failed Syrian Coup, my uncle, Senator John F. Kennedy, infuriated the Eisenhower White House, the leaders of both political parties and our European allies with a milestone speech endorsing the right of self-governance in the Arab world and an end to America's imperialist meddling in Arab countries. Throughout my lifetime, and particularly during my frequent travels to the Mid-East, countless Arabs have fondly recalled that speech to me as the clearest statement of the idealism they expected from the U.S.

Kennedy's speech was a call for recommitting America to the high values our country had championed in the Atlantic Charter, the formal pledge that all the former European colonies would have the right to self-determination following World War II. FDR had strong-armed Churchill and the other allied leaders to sign the Atlantic Charter in 1941 as a precondition for U.S. support in the European war against fascism.

Thanks in large part to Allan Dulles and the CIA, whose foreign policy intrigues were often directly at odds with the stated policies of our nation, the idealistic path outlined in the Atlantic Charter was the road not taken. In 1957, my grandfather, Ambassador Joseph P. Kennedy, sat on a secret committee charged with investigating CIA's clandestine mischief in the Mid-East. The so called “Bruce Lovett Report," to which he was a signatory, described CIA coup plots in Jordan, Syria, Iran, Iraq and Egypt, all common knowledge on the Arab street, but virtually unknown to the American people who believed, at face value, their government's denials.

The report blamed the CIA for the rampant anti-Americanism that was then mysteriously taking root “in the many countries in the world today." The Bruce Lovett Report pointed out that such interventions were antithetical to American values and had compromised America's international leadership and moral authority without the knowledge of the American people. The report points out that the CIA never considered how we would treat such interventions if some foreign government engineered them in our country. This is the bloody history that modern interventionists like George W. Bush, Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio miss when they recite their narcissistic trope that Mid-East nationalists “hate us for our freedoms."

The Syrian and Iranian coups soiled America's reputation across the Mid-East and ploughed the fields of Islamic Jihadism which we have, ironically, purposefully nurtured. A parade of Iranian and Syrian dictators, including Bashar al-Assad and his father, have invoked the history of the CIA's bloody coups as a pretext for their authoritarian rule, repressive tactics and their need for a strong Russian alliance. These stories are therefore well known to the people of Syria and Iran who naturally interpret talk of U.S. intervention in the context of that history.

While the compliant American press parrots the narrative that our military support for the Syrian insurgency is purely humanitarian, many Syrians see the present crisis as just another proxy war over pipelines and geopolitics. Before rushing deeper into the conflagration, it would be wise for us to consider the abundant facts supporting that perspective.

A Pipeline War

In their view, our war against Bashar Assad did not begin with the peaceful civil protests of the Arab Spring in 2011. Instead it began in 2000 when Qatar proposed to construct a $10 billion, 1,500km pipeline through Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria and Turkey.

Note the purple line which traces the proposed Qatar-Turkey natural gas pipeline and note that all of the countries highlighted in red are part of a new coalition hastily put together after Turkey finally (in exchange for NATO's acquiescence on Erdogan's politically-motivated war with the PKK) agreed to allow the US to fly combat missions against ISIS targets from Incirlik. Now note which country along the purple line is not highlighted in red. That's because Bashar al-Assad didn't support the pipeline and now we're seeing what happens when you're a Mid-East strongman and you decide not to support something the US and Saudi Arabia want to get done. (Map: ZeroHedge.com via MintPress News)

Qatar shares with Iran, the South Pars/North Dome gas field, the world's richest natural gas repository. The international trade embargo, until recently, prohibited Iran from selling gas abroad and ensured that Qatar's gas could only reach European markets if it is liquefied and shipped by sea, a route that restricts volume and dramatically raises costs.

The proposed pipeline would have linked Qatar directly to European energy markets via distribution terminals in Turkey which would pocket rich transit fees. The Qatar/Turkey pipeline would have given the Sunni Kingdoms of the Persian Gulf decisive domination of world natural gas markets and strengthen Qatar, America's closest ally in the Arab world. Qatar hosts two massive American military bases and the U.S. Central Command's Mid-East headquarters.

The EU, which gets 30 percent of its gas from Russia, was equally hungry for the pipeline which would have given its members cheap energy and relief from Vladimir Putin's stifling economic and political leverage. Turkey, Russia's second largest gas customer, was particularly anxious to end its reliance on its ancient rival and to position itself as the lucrative transect hub for Asian fuels to EU markets. The Qatari pipeline would have benefited Saudi Arabia's conservative Sunni Monarchy by giving them a foothold in Shia dominated Syria.

The Saudi's geopolitical goal is to contain the economic and political power of the Kingdom's principal rival, Iran, a Shiite state, and close ally of Bashar Assad. The Saudi monarchy viewed the U.S. sponsored Shia takeover in Iraq as a demotion to its regional power and was already engaged in a proxy war against Tehran in Yemen, highlighted by the Saudi genocide against the Iranian backed Houthi tribe.

Of course, the Russians, who sell 70 percent of their gas exports to Europe, viewed the Qatar/Turkey pipeline as an existential threat. In Putin's view, the Qatar pipeline is a NATO plot to change the status quo, deprive Russia of its only foothold in the Middle East, strangle the Russian economy and end Russian leverage in the European energy market. In 2009, Assad announced that he would refuse to sign the agreement to allow the pipeline to run through Syria “to protect the interests of our Russian ally."

Assad further enraged the Gulf's Sunni monarchs by endorsing a Russian approved “Islamic pipeline" running from Iran's side of the gas field through Syria and to the ports of Lebanon. The Islamic pipeline would make Shia Iran instead of Sunni Qatar, the principal supplier to the European energy market and dramatically increase Tehran's influence in the Mid-East and the world. Israel also was understandably determined to derail the Islamic pipeline which would enrich Iran and Syria and presumably strengthen their proxies, Hezbollah and Hamas.

Secret cables and reports by the U.S., Saudi and Israeli intelligence agencies indicate that the moment Assad rejected the Qatari pipeline, military and intelligence planners quickly arrived at the consensus that fomenting a Sunni uprising in Syria to overthrow the uncooperative Bashar Assad was a feasible path to achieving the shared objective of completing the Qatar/Turkey gas link. In 2009, according to WikiLeaks, soon after Bashar Assad rejected the Qatar pipeline, the CIA began funding opposition groups in Syria.

Bashar Assad's family is Alawite, a Muslim sect widely perceived as aligned with the Shia camp. “Bashar Assad was never supposed to be president," says journalist Sy Hersh. “His father brought him back from medical school in London when his elder brother, the heir apparent, was killed in a car crash."

Before the war started, according to Hersh, Assad was moving to liberalize the country—“They had internet and newspapers and ATM machines and Assad wanted to move toward the west. After 9/11, he gave thousands of invaluable files to the CIA on Jihadist radicals, who he considered a mutual enemy."

Assad's regime was deliberately secular and Syria was impressively diverse. The Syrian government and military, for example, were 80 percent Sunni. Assad maintained peace among his diverse peoples by a strong disciplined army loyal to the Assad family, an allegiance secured by a nationally esteemed and highly paid officer corps, a coldly efficient intelligence apparatus and a penchant for brutality which, prior to the war, was rather moderate compared to other Mideast leaders, including our current allies.

According to Hersh, “He certainly wasn't beheading people every Wednesday like the Saudis do in Mecca." Another veteran journalist, Bob Parry, echoes that assessment. “No one in the region has clean hands but in the realms of torture, mass killings, civil liberties and supporting terrorism, Assad is much better than the Saudis."

No one believed that the regime was vulnerable to the anarchy that had riven Egypt, Libya, Yemen and Tunisia. By the spring of 2011, there were small, peaceful demonstrations in Damascus against repression by Assad's regime. These were mainly the effluvia of the Arab Spring which spread virally across the Arab League states the previous summer. However, Huffington Post UK reported that in Syria the protests were, at least in part, orchestrated by the CIA. WikiLeaks cables indicate that the CIA was already on the ground in Syria.

But the Sunni Kingdoms wanted a much deeper involvement from America. On Sept. 4, 2013, Secretary of State John Kerry told a congressional hearing that the Sunni kingdoms had offered to foot the bill for a US. invasion of Syria to oust Bashar al-Assad. “In fact, some of them have said that if the United States is prepared to go do the whole thing, the way we've done it previously in other places [Iraq], they'll carry the cost," he stated. Kerry reiterated the offer to Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL27): “With respect to Arab countries offering to bear the costs of [an American invasion] to topple Assad, the answer is profoundly Yes, they have. The offer is on the table."

Despite pressure from Republicans, Barrack Obama balked at hiring out young Americans to die as mercenaries for a pipeline conglomerate. Obama wisely ignored Republican clamoring to put ground troops in Syria or to funnel more funding to “moderate insurgents." But by late 2011, Republican pressure and our Sunni allies had pushed the American government into the fray.

In 2011, the U.S. joined France, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and England to form the “Friends of Syria Coalition," which formally demanded the removal of Assad. The CIA provided $6 million to Barada, a British T.V. channel, to produce pieces entreating Assad's ouster. Saudi intelligence documents, published by WikiLeaks, show that by 2012, Turkey, Qatar and Saudi Arabia were arming, training and funding radical Jihadist Sunni fighters from Syria, Iraq and elsewhere to overthrow the Assad's Shia allied regime. Qatar, which had the most to gain, invested $3 billion in building the insurgency and invited the Pentagon to train insurgents at U.S. bases in Qatar. U.S. personnel also provided logistical support and intelligence to the rebels on the ground. The Times of London reported on Sept. 14, 2012, that the CIA also armed Jihadists with anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles and other weapons from Libyan armories that the agency smuggled by ratlines to Syria via Turkey. According to an April 2014 article by Seymour Hersh, the CIA weapons ratlines were financed by Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar.

The idea of fomenting a Sunni-Shia civil war to weaken the Syrian and Iranian regimes so as to maintain control of the region's petro-chemical supplies was not a novel notion in the Pentagon's lexicon. A damning 2008 Pentagon funded Rand report proposed a precise blueprint for what was about to happen. That report observes that control of the Persian Gulf oil and gas deposits will remain, for the U.S., “a strategic priority" that “will interact strongly with that of prosecuting the long war."

Rand recommends using “covert action, information operations, unconventional warfare" to enforce a “divide and rule" strategy. “The United States and its local allies could use the nationalist jihadists to launch a proxy campaign" and “U.S. leaders could also choose to capitalize on the sustained Shia-Sunni conflict trajectory by taking the side of the conservative Sunni regimes against Shiite empowerment movements in the Muslim world ... possibly supporting authoritative Sunni governments against a continuingly hostile Iran."

WikiLeaks cables from as early as 2006 show the U.S. State Department, at the urging of the Israeli government, proposing to partner with Turkey, Qatar and Egypt to foment Sunni civil war in Syria to weaken Iran. The stated purpose, according to the secret cable, was to incite Assad into a brutal crackdown of Syria's Sunni population.

As predicted, Assad's overreaction to the foreign made crisis—dropping barrel bombs onto Sunni strongholds and killing civilians—polarized Syria's Shia/Sunni divide and allowed U.S. policymakers to sell Americans the idea that the pipeline struggle was a humanitarian war. When Sunni soldiers of the Syrian Army began defecting in 2013, the Western Coalition armed the “Free Syrian Army" to further destabilize Syria. The press portrait of the Free Syria Army as cohesive battalions of Syrian moderates was delusional. The dissolved units regrouped in hundreds of independent militias most of whom were commanded by or allied with Jihadi militants who were the most committed and effective fighters. By then, the Sunni armies of Al Qaeda Iraq (AQI) were crossing the border from Iraq into Syria and joining forces with the battalions of deserters from the Free Syria Army, many of them trained and armed by the U.S.

Despite the prevailing media portrait of a moderate Arab uprising against the tyrant Assad, U.S. Intelligence planners knew from the outset that their pipeline proxies were radical jihadists who would probably carve themselves a brand new Islamic caliphate from the Sunni regions of Syria and Iraq. Two years before ISIS throat cutters stepped on the world stage, a seven-page Aug. 12, 2012 study by the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), obtained by the right wing group Judicial Watch, warned that thanks to the ongoing support by U.S./Sunni Coalition for radical Sunni Jihadists, “the Salafist, the Muslim Brotherhood and AQI (now ISIS), are the major forces driving the insurgency in Syria."

Using U.S. and Gulf State funding, these groups had turned the peaceful protests against Bashar Assad toward “a clear sectarian (Shiite vs Sunni) direction." The paper notes that the conflict had become a sectarian civil war supported by Sunni “religious and political powers." The report paints the Syrian conflict as a global war for control of the region's resources with “the west, Gulf countries and Turkey supporting [Assad's] opposition, while Russia, China and Iran support the regime."

The Pentagon authors of the seven-page report appear to endorse the predicted advent of the ISIS caliphate:

“If the situation continues unravelling, there is the possibility of establishing a declared or undeclared Salafist principality in eastern Syria (Hasakah and Deir ez-Zor) and this is exactly what the supporting powers to the opposition want in order to isolate the Syrian regime." The Pentagon report warns that this new principality could move across the Iraqi border to Mosul and Ramadi and “declare an Islamic state through its union with other terrorist organizations in Iraq and Syria."

Of course, this is precisely what has happened. Not coincidentally, the regions of Syria occupied by ISIS exactly encompass the proposed route of the Qatari pipeline.

But then in 2014, our Sunni proxies horrified the American people by severing heads and driving a million refugees toward Europe. “Strategies based upon the idea that the enemy of my enemy is my friend can be kind of blinding," says Tim Clemente, who chaired the FBI's Joint Terrorism Task Force between 2004 and 2008 and served as liaison in Iraq between the FBI, the Iraqi National Police and the U.S. Military. “We made the same mistake when we trained the Mujahedeen in Afghanistan. The moment the Russians left, our supposed friends started smashing antiquities, enslaving women, severing body parts and shooting at us."

When ISIS' “Jihadi John" began murdering prisoners on TV, the White House pivoted, talking less about deposing Assad and more about regional stability. The Obama Administration began putting daylight between itself and the insurgency we had funded. The White House pointed accusing fingers at our allies. On Oct. 3, 2014, Vice President Joe Biden told students at the John F. Kennedy, Jr. forum at the Institute of Politics at Harvard that “Our allies in the region are our biggest problem in Syria." He explained that Turkey, Saudi Arabia and the UAE were “so determined to take down Assad" that they had launched a “proxy Sunni-Shia war" funneling “hundreds of millions of dollars and tens of thousands of tons of weapons to Jihadists of the al-Nusra front and al-Qaeda"—the two groups that merged in 2014 to form ISIS.

Biden seemed angered that our trusted “friends" could not be trusted to follow the American agenda. “ISI[S] is a direct outgrowth of al-Qaeda in Iraq that grew out of our invasion," declared Obama, disassociating himself from the Sunni rebellion, “which is an example of unintended consequences which is why we should generally aim before we shoot." As if to demonstrate their contempt for America's new found restraint, our putative allies, the Turks responded to the U.S. rebukes by shooting down a plane belonging to our other putative ally, the Russians—probably to spoil a potential deal between Russia and the U.S. that would leave Assad in power.

Across the Mid-East, Arab leaders routinely accuse the U.S. of having created ISIS. To most Americans immersed in U.S. media perspective, such accusations seem insane. However, to many Arabs, the evidence of U.S. involvement is so abundant that they conclude that our role in fostering ISIS must have been deliberate. On Sept. 22, 2014, according to the New York Times, Iraqi leader, Shiite Cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, told Baghdad demonstrators that “the CIA created ISIS." Iraq's Deputy Prime Minister, Bahaa Al-Araji, echoed al-Sadr's accusation. “We know who made Daesh," Iraq's Treasury Secretary, Haidar al-Assadi, told the Digital News Aggregate, “The Islamic State is a clear creation of the United States, and the United States is trying to intervene again using the excuse of the Islamic State."

In fact, many of the ISIS fighters and their commanders are ideological and organizational successors to the Jihadists that the CIA has been nurturing for 30 years. The CIA began arming and training the Mujahedeen in Afghanistan in 1979 to fight the Soviets. Following the Soviet withdrawal, the CIA's Afghan Mujahedeen became the Taliban while its foreign fighters, including Osama bin Laden, formed Al-Qaeda. In 2004, then British Foreign Secretary Robin Cook told the House of Commons that Al-Qaeda took its name—meaning “database" in Arabic—from the voluminous CIA database of Jihadists—Mujahedeen foreign fighters and arms smugglers trained and equipped by the CIA during the Afghan conflict.

Prior to the American invasion, there was no Al-Qaeda in Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Bush destroyed Saddam's secularist government and his viceroy, Paul Bremer, in a monumental act of mismanagement, effectively created the Sunni Army, now named ISIS. Bremer elevated the Shiites to power and banned Saddam's ruling Ba'ath Party laying off some 700,000, mostly Sunni, government and party officials from ministers to school teachers. He then disbanded the 380,000 man army, which was 80 percent Sunni.

Bremer's actions stripped a million of Iraq's Sunnis of rank, property, wealth and power; leaving a desperate underclass of angry, educated, capable, trained and heavily armed Sunnis with little left to lose. General Petraeus' decision to import dirty war tactics, including torture and death squads, from the CIA's El Salvador conflict in order to shock and awe the Sunni resistance, instead ignited a shockingly bloody spiral of sectarian violence that devolved quickly into escalating atrocities topped finally by the Sunni Army signature head cutting. The Sunni insurgency named itself Al-Qaeda Iraq (AQI).

Beginning in 2011, our allies funded the invasion by AQI fighters into Syria. In June 2014 having entered Syria, AQI changed its name to ISIS. According to the New Yorker, “ISIS is run by a council of former Iraqi Generals ... many are members of Saddam Hussein's secular Ba'ath Party, who converted to radical Islam in American prisons." The $500 million in U.S. military aid that Obama did send to Syria almost certainly ended up benefiting these militant Jihadists. On Sept. 16, 2015, incredulous senators from the Armed Services Committee listened to U.S. General Lloyd Austin, Commander of the U.S. Central Command, explain that the Pentagon had spent $500 million to train and arm “moderate" insurgents in Syria and had only “four or five reliable moderate fighters" to show instead of the promised 5,000. The remainder apparently deserted or defected to ISIS.

Tim Clemente told me that the incomprehensible difference between the Iraq and Syria conflicts are the millions of military aged men who are fleeing the battlefield for Europe rather than staying to fight for their communities. “You have this formidable fighting force and they are all running away. I don't understand how you can have millions of military aged men running away from the battlefield. In Iraq, the bravery was heartbreaking—I had friends who refused to leave the country even though they knew they would die. They'd just tell you it's my country, I need to stay and fight," Clemente said.

The obvious explanation is that the nation's moderates are fleeing a war that is not their war. They simply want to escape being crushed between the anvil of Assad's Russian backed tyranny and the vicious Jihadi Sunni hammer that we had a hand in wielding in a global battle over competing pipelines. You can't blame the Syrian people for not widely embracing a blueprint for their nation minted in either Washington or Moscow. The super powers have left no options for an idealistic future that moderate Syrians might consider fighting for. And no one wants to die for a pipeline.

What is the answer? If our objective is long-term peace in the Mid-East, self-government by the Arab nations and national security at home, we must undertake any new intervention in the region with an eye on history and an intense desire to learn its lessons. Only when we Americans understand the historical and political context of this conflict will we apply appropriate scrutiny to the decisions of our leaders.

Using the same imagery and language that supported our 2003 war against Saddam Hussein, our political leaders led Americans to believe that our Syrian intervention is an idealistic war against tyranny, terrorism and religious fanaticism. We tend to dismiss, as mere cynicism, the views of those Arabs who see the current crisis as a rerun of the same old plots about pipelines and geopolitics. But, if we are to have an effective foreign policy, we must recognize the Syrian conflict is a war over control of resources indistinguishable from the myriad clandestine and undeclared oil wars we have been fighting in the Mid-East for 65 years. And only when we see this conflict as a proxy war over a pipeline do events become comprehensible.

It's the only paradigm that explains why the GOP on Capitol Hill and the Obama administration are still fixated on regime change rather than regional stability, why the Obama administration can find no Syrian moderates to fight the war, why ISIS blew up a Russian passenger plane, why the Saudi's just executed a powerful Shia cleric only to have their embassy burned in Tehran, why Russia is bombing non-ISIS fighters and why Turkey went out of its way to down a Russian jet. The million refugees now flooding into Europe are refugees of a pipeline war and CIA blundering.

Clemente compares ISIS to Colombia's FARC—a drug cartel with a revolutionary ideology to inspire its foot soldiers. “You have to think of ISIS as an oil cartel," Clemente said. “In the end, money is the governing rationale. The religious ideology is a tool that inspires its soldiers to give their lives for an oil cartel."

Once we strip this conflict of its humanitarian patina and recognize the Syrian conflict as an oil war, our foreign policy strategy becomes clear. Instead, our first priority should be the one no one ever mentions—we need to kick our Mid-East oil jones, an increasingly feasible objective, as the U.S. becomes more energy independent. Next, we need to dramatically reduce our military profile in the Middle East and let the Arabs run Arabia. Other than humanitarian assistance and guaranteeing the security of Israel's borders, the U.S. has no legitimate role in this conflict. While the facts prove that we played a role in creating the crisis, history shows that we have little power to resolve it.

As we contemplate history, it's breathtaking to consider the astonishing consistency with which virtually every violent intervention in the Middle East since World War II by our country has resulted in miserable failure. The long list of CIA and military adventures has each cost us dearly in national treasure, in liberty at home, in our moral authority abroad and in our national security. Without any memorable exception, every violent intervention has resulted in a catastrophic blowback far more costly to our country than any problems the authors our meddling intended to solve. Our mischief has neither improved life in the Middle East nor has it made America safer.

A 1997 U.S. Department of Defense report found that “the data show a strong correlation between U.S. involvement abroad and an increase in terrorist attacks against the U.S." Let's face it, what we call the “war on terror" is really just another oil war. We've squandered $6 trillion on three wars abroad and on constructing a national security warfare state at home since oilman Cheney declared the “Long War" in 2001. The only winners have been the military contractors and oil companies who have pocketed historic profits. We have compromised our values, butchered our own youth, killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people, subverted our idealism and squandered our national treasures in fruitless and costly adventures abroad. In the process, we have turned America, once the world's beacon of freedom, into a national security surveillance state and an international moral pariah.

America's founding fathers warned Americans against standing armies, foreign entanglements and, in John Adams' words, “going abroad in search of monsters to destroy." Those wise men understood that imperialism abroad is incompatible with democracy and civil rights at home. They wanted America to be a “city on a hill"—a model of democracy for the rest of the world.

The Atlantic Charter echoed their seminal American ideal that each nation should have the right to self-determination. Over the past seven decades, the Dulles brothers, the Cheney Gang, the neocons and their ilk have hijacked that fundamental principle of American idealism and deployed our military and intelligence apparatus to serve the mercantile interests of large corporations and particularly, the petroleum companies and military contractors who have literally made a killing from these conflicts. It's time for Americans to turn America away from this new imperialism and back to the path of idealism and democracy. We should let the Arabs govern Arabia and turn our energies to the great endeavor of nation building at home. We need to begin this process, not by invading Syria, but by ending our ruinous addiction to oil.

Original Source: Here.