The New York Times’ Preemptive Reporting on James Comey

James Comey Would Like to Help: The former F.B.I. director wants an end to the Trump presidency. And yes, he knows you might think he caused it” is the headline atop an instructive article on Sunday by Matt Flegenheimer of The New York Times. His article makes clear the Times remains determined to support former FBI Director James Comey and sustain the discredited Russiagate narrative they share to the point of helping Comey and his partners avoid possible time in prison.

In late August, the Department of Justice decided to let Comey off with a slap on the wrist for leaking to the Times, through an intermediary, highly sensitive information from his talks with President Donald Trump. At that juncture, it was already a no-brainer to warn that the victory lap Comey chose to run was clearly premature.

Continue reading “The New York Times’ Preemptive Reporting on James Comey”

Yemen’s Cholera Outbreak Is About To Get Worse

Originally appeared at The American Conservative.

Yemen’s cholera epidemic and humanitarian crisis threaten to get even worse:

A children’s advocacy group is warning of a spike in cholera cases in northern Yemen affecting hundreds of thousands of children and their families as a result of an increase in fuel shortages.

Save the Children said Wednesday that fuel shortages have resulted in a jump in food prices and, as a result, a deepening health crisis.

The group says fuel prices have hiked 100% over the past 40 days as the internationally recognized government imposed customs duties in the interim capital Aden. That caused a 60% decrease in the amount of fuel coming through the key port of Hodeida, the group says.

Continue reading “Yemen’s Cholera Outbreak Is About To Get Worse”

The US Has Too Many ‘Allies’

Originally appeared at The American Conservative.

There are a lot of questionable assumptions informing this New York Times piece about Syria and U.S. support for the YPG. This quote from Stavridis sets the tone for the entire article:

“In the course of American history, when we have stuck with our allies in troubling circumstances, from the U.K. and Australia under attack in WWII to South Korea in the Korean War, things tend to work out to our benefit,” said James G. Stavridis, a retired admiral and former supreme allied commander for Europe. “When we walk away from loyal allies, as we did in Vietnam and are now threatening to do in Afghanistan and Syria, the wheels come off.”

Why does the US have allies and partners? Are these relationships meant to advance US interests, or are they ends in themselves that must be sustained no matter what? To listen to Stavridis and quite a few others, they seem to think it is the latter or they are incapable of making the distinction between the two. In all of the examples he cites, he is referring to local partners in wars that the US either should never have fought (Vietnam, Syria) or should have stopped fighting long ago (Afghanistan). This problem keeps coming up because the US chooses to take part in conflicts in which the US has no vital interests. If the US has no vital interests in a conflict, it will sooner or later “walk away” from the conflict and the partners that it had. The policy failure happens when the US commits to unnecessary and unwinnable wars and gives local partners unreasonable expectations of the amount of support and protection they can expect. Our government tends to go to war recklessly and without thinking through the implications of our involvement, and it throws its support to local groups too easily and makes promises that it can’t or won’t keep. The solution is not to keep US forces in these places in perpetuity, but to refrain from sending them there to begin with.

Continue reading “The US Has Too Many ‘Allies’”

Democrats and Liberals Trust the CIA More Than Republicans

One of the many negative consequences of the Russiagate craze was the rehabilitation of U.S. intelligence agencies in the eyes of Liberals and Democrats. A new poll from Fox News shows that they are the group that trusts the CIA and FBI the most, compared to Republicans and Independents.

According to the poll 73 percent of Democrats, 74 percent of Hillary Clinton voters and 74 percent of liberals have confidence in the CIA. When it comes to the FBI, the agency of their patron saint Robert Mueller, its 77 percent across the board.

NBC News did a poll in December 2016 that showed Democrats favored the CIA more than Republicans since they started asking that question in 2002. That was around the time the CIA decided the Russian government interfered in the 2016 election.

Continue reading “Democrats and Liberals Trust the CIA More Than Republicans”