BFP Roundtable NATO Russia Turkey Raw Draft TXT Dump

[MUSIC]

(Sibel Edmonds [voice-over]): So
It's just like, OK, let's have a real talk

-- real talk -- no censorship...

Welcome to this edition of the
Boiling Frogs Post Roundtable.

In San Francisco, I'm Peter B. Collins,

and I host the Peter B. Collins Podcast,

and the Processing Distortion Podcast
that's available at BoilingFrogsPost.com.

Deep in the heart of Texas,

Guillermo Jimenez joins us once again.

He runs Demanufacturing Consent
and the TracesOfReality.com blog.

Guillermo, good to see you.

Good to see you too, Peter.

And joining us from the EyeOpener post
in Japan,

we have James Corbett of CorbettReport.com

and the EyeOpener video series

here at Boiling Frogs Post.

Good to be here, Peter. Thanks.

And the good-looking member of our panel:

our publisher and, of course, the author
of Classified Woman,

Sibel Edmonds. Hello, Sibel.

Hello, everyone.

It's been a while since we've been
able to convene,

and quite a bit has been happening
in Ukraine:

and we'll start there.

I also, during this conversation,

want to learn more about the situation
in Turkey;

and Sibel is certainly
very well-positioned

to advance some of our knowledge
about that.

But as we look at events in the Ukraine,
the vote in Crimea

-- the posturing of both sides --

the place I would like to start

is trying to separate any kind of reality

from the psychological operations
of both sides.

We start with the US and NATO,

which was in a protracted effort

to seduce Kiev into a Euro-centric
relationship.

Most people characterize that

as primarily trade issues,

but there's a lot of security

that went with that package.

That is what many people believe
caused Yanukovich

to tilt eastward to Moscow.

And, of course,

there are still many questions

about who the protesters were
in the Maidan Square;

who the snipers were, in some
of the culminating events.

This, of course, occurred during

the final week of Putin's Olympics
in Sochi, [laughs]

which presented some interesting
contrasts and distractions.

But we also know that the US spent
at least $5 billion dollars

on so-called "democracy-building
projects" in Ukraine

that were aimed at destabilizing
a democratic government.

Corrupt, yes;

but democratic, I think most people
would widely acknowledge.

And now, similar to the way the US pivoted

after the military coup in Egypt last year

and said that that coup put Egypt
on a path to democracy,

the US now maintains the legitimacy

of the self-appointed government in Kiev

against the challenges from Moscow

about its very legitimacy.

So those are just a few

of the observations I have to open
this discussion.

And I'm gonna pick on James next

-- he didn't know this was coming --

but James, give us your thoughts
and your perspectives

on the events as you've seen them
from your post.

Well, I guess what strikes me first
and foremost

is the hypocrisy at every single stage

of this conflict so far

The hypocrisy coming, of course,

rom people like John Kerry:

"We're not in the 19th century;"

"you can't invade a country on
trumped-up pretexts."

But I think the hypocrisy extends

to pretty much everything that we've
seen so far.

Whether you look at, for example,

the protest over the Crimean referendum

-- "Oh, you can't have a referendum
like that,"

"that's against the Ukrainian
Constitution!"

As if the coup that happened
with the Euromaidan

was itself not in violation of the
Ukrainian Constitution

and an overthrow of a
democratically-elected government.

The hypocrisy that comes from
NATO preaching to Russia:

"You have to stop all of your posturing,"

"your military posturing on the Russian
side of the border there."

Meanwhile, of course, Ukraine and NATO

are now jointly conducting military
exercises and the like.

So again,

the hypocrisy striking one more time.

And it continues to go off the charts;

and that, I think, rankles anyone

who is even halfway paying attention
to what's going on.

I mean, the propaganda that we're
seeing now

is ratcheted up to a level

that I haven't seen in years and years.

I imagine it was like this back during
the original Cold War,

and I think we're at the exact same
level today

-- and again, that's not really surprising

for regular listeners of
Boiling Frogs Post.

But, just the blatant nature of it.

I mean, just scrolling through the
news today,

I was looking for stories about the
Ukraine:

and every single one of them

are from the Ukrainian/NATO perspective,

not from the Crimean/Russian perspective
at all.

Every single one of them treats it

like some sort of foreign, alien entity

that cannot be reasoned with,

cannot be understood,

has no sense of reason behind
what they do.

And I think that the danger of
this is twofold.

Because, of course, first of all

there are the people who will
simply buy this:

who will buy this propaganda

and what's going on right now.

And of course, we've seen that

-- culturally --

happening on every single level:

that now Putin is being cast

as some kind of demon from hell
or something,

and people are just sleepwalking into it.

The other problem is, of course,

this is kind of a tu quoque
logical fallacy.

It's, "Well, the other guys are
doing this,"

"so it's OK if we do it."

And I think we shouldn't fall
into that trap:

that it's one side or another,

or we should be on the Russian side

as opposed to the NATO side.

I think what we're seeing is basically
two powers

carving out a section of a country

for their own geopolitical purposes,

and we would be naive to think
that this doesn't...

that Putin or NATO are not
interested in this

for their own economic and
political reasons,

rather than for the good of the
Ukrainian people,

or the people of Crimea,

or what have you.

So I'm wary of the number of pitfalls

that come from this story.

So I'd be interested to turn it over
to Guillermo

to get his take on that,

and whether or not he thinks

that this is, again, some sort of trap

that we're being forced into

-- whether it's a pincer movement:

you have to choose one side or the other.

Yeah, I'd agree with that sentiment.

In fact, that's what struck me most

about the sort of stuff we've seen
in the media so far.

You touched on it, Peter, touched on it:

the... sort of, psyop

-- whatever you want to call it --

propaganda war.

And the idea

-- and in fact, James, you actually...

I think you touched on this in
a recent podcast --

which I thoroughly enjoyed,

because it's exactly the way I felt

-- that the enemy of my enemy

is not necessarily my friend.

And the way this has been framed
in the media thus far...

I think I've said this once before,

but I really do feel like it's like this:

it's something like a
multiple-choice test,

and one with only two answers.

It's either A or B;

it's... you're either with the US
and NATO,

or you're with the Russians.

In other words, as you point out,

the fact that this has in some way

-- or in many ways, really --

been orchestrated by the US and NATO,

what's happening in the Ukraine:

then... you are then, by extension,

a Russian apologist;

you're Putin apologist, and so forth.

And so, that's the way it's been framed

in most of the media.

And up until recently,

it was most of the media across the board:

whether mainstream or alternative,

or pseudo-alternative,

or whatever you want to call it.

It's been like that:

it's been that sort of dichotomy,

that false dichotomy, throughout.

And that's what really stuck me
the most about it.

That's what I've kind of been focusing on,

is the way that it's been framed
in the media so far.

And something else that you pointed out

that I thought was worth echoing

in regards to media as well:

the way that Russia's painted in this

-- if they're mentioned at all, right?

If the perspective is at all brought up --

it's in a sort of...

as you say,

in a way that this other entity,

whatever it is,

cannot be reasoned with;

cannot be talked to.

And this is a classic
dehumanization tactic

when painting your enemy,

or... how should I put this?

When framing an enemy,

it's important to do this, of course,

in the minds of the public.

Otherwise...

well, they wouldn't be your enemy

if you saw them in the same way:

as relatable;

as people;

as people that could be talked to, with...

and something could be reached
through diplomacy,

in other words.

So that's something that gets forgotten.

Immediately the war drums start beating,

and that's always the solution,

is intervention on the part of

either the military directly through the
United States,

or through NATO.

So that's kind of my two cents on that,
thus far.

Sibel? Tell us what you think.

Sure. [laughs].

Well, I think a lot of posturing is going
on on both sides,

while both sides know exactly how
this game is going to end.

Because historically,

Crimea has been in this situation
for a long time:

there has always been this...

kind of an invisible divisive line there

between Crimea region and the
rest of Ukraine,

if you look at Ukraine.

And I predict that it's going to end up

with Crimea getting separated from
Ukraine,

and both parties after all the posturing saying,

"OK, now everything is fine."

And I want to approach this

from the Russian people's perspective,

because I think they're in

a pretty screwed-up situation as well

-- in terms of being given information
in Russia --

as we are here,

in the United States, as well.

Because, again, I want us to take a look

at the last, let's say, 17, 18 years, OK?

We basically engaged in similar games
with Eastern Europe.

I mean, we chopped and divided Serbia;

we had Albania and Kosovo and Bosnia;

we brought in mujahideen from across
the Middle East into Eastern Europe,

and basically tore apart and divided
those nations.

We broke up all those countries,

just the way that's going to happen
with Ukraine.

And guess, really, what happened
with Russia?

What did Russia really do?

I mean, they did have some
posturing there;

but US and NATO: they had complete
free hand,

going in there and taking care
of Eastern Europe

and taking over the Eastern Europe.

And guess what happened next?

We have started putting all
our bases there.

I mean, name a country in
Eastern Europe today

that is not a NATO base.

Can you think of any?

I mean, take a look at it:

Romania, Poland...

And so that's what happened,

and we saw nothing from Russia.

You know: zero, zilch.

And then move forward, fast forward...

I would say, to the past 15, 16 years.

We started meddling and
positioning ourself

-- and by "we," "us,"
I mean the United States and NATO --

in all over Central Asia and Caucasus.

Azerbaijan: candidate NATO member, OK?

With all our troops actually
there already:

with NATO troops there,

they have been training them;

and this started in 2002.

Georgia: NATO candidate.

Take a look at the proximity
of these nations,

these ex-Soviet blocs,

to Russia.

What has Russia done

in the face of all these bases

coming right in its backyard?

Really, what has it done?

Until recently, we had Kyrgyzstan.

We had the Manas Airbase.

So Kyrgyzstan kicked us out,

and we were not really unhappy with it

because Kyrgyzstan lost its importance.

Now we have Georgia;

we have Azerbaijan.

We are talking about Estonia;

we are talking about Lithuania.

I think what Russia has had

for the past couple of decades

since the Soviets' fall...

they haven't had real nationalist
presidents.

They have had presidents and
leaders that are...

they are good at posturing,

like Putin with Syria and everything.

Well, Putin has to do this

to a certain degree, the posturing.

Otherwise, Putin won't stay
in this position.

But, is Putin a real Russian nationalist?

Is he a Russian nationalist president?

I would say, absolutely not.

And the guy before Putin?

Absolutely not: Yeltsin?

Are you kidding me?

Just the other day I was
reading this article

-- again, somebody wrote it in Russia,

and it had to do with the
net worth of Putin:

that they were putting it
somewhere between

$250 million dollars and
$500 million dollars.

And supposedly all these assets, his money

-- and this is Putin --

is outside Russia.

Well, when I was working with the FBI,

through some of the targets we had,

there were a lot of discussions
and intelligence exchanged

that had to do with a lot of assets that

-- actually, even at that time --

Putin had in Cyprus,

the Greek side of Cyprus.

Well, what is this? Greece is not NATO?

So you're looking at Russia being run

by people who really don't have

that real Russian nationalist
mental attitude,

or the feelings, or the belief.

They are not idealists;

they are not the Russian idealists.

Because of that, I kind of shrug off

this entire talk of Cold War.

And I know that both parties
know the endgame:

and that being Putin,

and also EU/NATO and the United States.

Crimea eventually, within the
next few months,

is gonna be separated,

just as we saw happening when we had

Yugoslavia and Bulgaristan
[sic] disappearing,

and getting into these little chunks
and pieces.

So, that's exactly what we are seeing,

and that's how I view the entire
situation that we are seeing.

I'd like to ask each of the panelists just

to critique the United States
in this episode.

Because I think that the shift last
August,

when Obama threatened military
action against Syria

and took us to the brink of war,

only to be rescued by Putin

-- saved from himself, is how
I would describe it --

and I think that Putin saw that
as tremendous weakness

on the part of the United States.

And coupling that with the personal snub

--because Obama wouldn't attend
the Olympics,

and Obama said he was doing that

because Ed Snowden is still in Moscow,
and perhaps over the gay issues --

but bottom line is,

I think that there's a combination of ego
and personal pique,

plus the opportunism that was
really exposed

in the way the US mishandled
that episode with Syria.

James, you want to start?

Well, I think there's something to
what you're saying;

but to be honest, I don't put a lot of
truck in the idea

that this really does come down to

the interpersonal conflicts

of people like Obama and Putin.

I think this is part of a much, much
broader agenda

that has been playing out

through administration
after administration.

As Sibel was saying,

for at least a decade and a half,

we've been watching this
gradual encirclement

of Russia by NATO.

And again, as Sibel pointed out,

we haven't seen a lot of reaction
from Russia

-- either geopolitically, economically;
in any real way --

to this.

And that, again, remains the
puzzling part.

And this is something that
Sibel and I addressed

a number of times in our Gladio B series

and in some of our other talks:

where, we know that Russia is
well-aware of the fact

that NATO/Gladio has been
operating on their doorstep

for a very long time now, and continues
to threaten

with these staged and provoked
terror attacks.

And yet

-- although, presumably, they do
have the goods on this --

have still not come with...

produced the goods, to show that
this is happening.

And it really does raise the question of,

"Why? What is going on here?
Why do they hold back?"

And I think one of the answers
to that question,

that at least makes some plausible sense,

is that the War on Terror narrative
and all of this, again,

serves Russian interests in the same way

that it serves interests at home.

So that Obama can use the national
security threat

to implement whatever type of
agenda he's looking for,

in the same way that Russia can
use the national security threat,

and Putin can parade on the victims
of various terror attacks

-- including the ones that he...

if not staged, at least certainly looked
the other way when they happened,

back when he was coming into office.

Back in 1999, with the Moscow
apartment building bombings

-- which, again: I think is a very,
very blatant false flag event

which needs to be looked into.

So again, I think

that rather than looking at these
individual leaders,

I think what we need to do is examine

the geopolitical and economic
interests behind them.

And again, I will have to side with
Sibel on this:

I do see the propaganda war,

framing this as the new Cold War.

And insofar as that is the new frame
for what's going on,

I think that that will play itself out
in reality.

I think there will be that tension;

everything will be framed within that
from now on.

But I really do question to what extent

these people are not...

if not, exactly, on the same side,

at least not exactly on opposite sides.

They are using the same strategies

and the same types of terror campaigns
and the like

to produce the same results
in their populations.

So I am quite skeptical about

the way this is all being framed,

and where it's heading from here.

And again, that's why I want to warn

about the either/or mentality

that comes along with these types
of conflicts.

Yeah, that's a very good point.

The false choices are often just presented

to distract you from a whole range
of other possibilities.

And it's quite effective;

there's no doubt about it.

Guillermo?

Yeah, I guess just to add to that:

I know what you're saying as far as

what this appears like on the surface

with regard to this new Cold War.

I've read commentaries like this
in the press,

specifically regarding Snowden

-- because you brought him up, Peter.

You know, this was supposed to be

Putin's great chess piece that he
was able to claim

-- in providing Snowden asylum,
was able to claim this politically --

as a great victory,

and sort of put that in the face
of the United States.

And of course, Syria is another
one of those things that,

superficially at least,

could be used in that same way.

I think you're on to something
there, James.

That's very interesting,

and it's giving me at least some
pause for thought:

the idea that this Global War on
Terror meme

benefits not just the United States,

but countries like Russia as well

that, again, appear to be
diametrically opposed

-- but are they, really? [laughs]

So that's interesting.

Again, it's given me a lot to think about;

but other than that,

I really don't know what else to offer
at the moment

regarding that, specifically.

Sibel?

As I said a few months ago

-- seven, eight months ago --

I said with Syria,

the only thing we are seeing here
is a pause.

The only thing we are seeing:

it has been placed on pause;

and it's going to restart again.

It's not that,

"OK, permanently hands off:"

"Russia won, Putin got his way."

No, not at all.

I mean, if you look at the latest bill
that was passed;

the fact that we just sent tanks
to the rebels;

the fact that it's heating up again,

the situation between Turkey and Syria

-- which is, with Turkey we are talking
about NATO and US, of course,

green light and leading from the back --

we are seeing that we are going back
again with Syria.

And again,

James really articulated all those points
very, very, well,

and we are totally in agreement on that.

And again, I want to go back to the
Russian side and say...

well, one of the things

that the Russians are experiencing here

is the neutered Russia.

I mean, truly, it has been the
neutered Russia.

And I'm trying to keep up and
follow up the news

on the other factions within Russia

-- whether the ultranationalists,

or even the moderate nationalists
in Russia --

how do they really view this:

seeing themselves as a nation
sitting there,

and they have been

-- really non-stop, consistently --

being encircled, and encircled,
and encircled.

I mean, think about it:

we had that brief episode of, what,

six, seven days' war between Georgia
and Abkhazia;

and Georgia is basically almost there

with being formally, officially

--- even though unofficially,
it has been part of NATO, really --

become a NATO member.

And as I talked about it...

again, last time

we talked about this with Azerbaijan

and what's happening with Azerbaijan.

So, the circle is really closing in,

and we really don't see anything
in Russia.

And of course, the other thing
with the pause...

and I would say it had to do

with some of the discontent
here domestically

in the United States on the issue
of Syria.

It was pretty quick with Libya.

It was like, boom-boom-boom, it was done.

I mean, there was not even enough time

for people to react

-- whether globally, or here
in the United States. But with Syria,

we started seeing a little bit more
of dissent here that was vocal --

and talking about false flag attacks
possibility;

questioning all these issues
of chemical attacks.

And you know how it is

when Hollywood starts making
too many movies on the same topic?

They say, "You know what?"

"We've saturated the market."

"We need to come up with something new."

I think the establishment

-- the shadow government, the
real deep state within the United States,

the global deep states --

they feel like they have played
this al-Qaeda card for too long.

It's not...

I mean, you kind of build immunity
to it, to a certain degree,

as we saw with Syria.

People are not as easily getting
bought into...

to this whole concept;

and it's becoming kind of an old factor,

the tool that's being played.

So, why not pause it,

and bring in the Communism
and Russia and Putin? [laughter]

And we have all these unbelievable
poster-like pictures

of Putin squinting and looking
at the camera;

and there is Obama being tough.

And we buy that mentality in the US,

saying, "Yeah, we gonna stand up;

"those bad Russians are after us again,
and we are the superpower."

And guess what?

For the majority of the Americans,

unfortunately, it has been working.

And it's amazing:

they have these surveys...

as part of the surveys,

that most of the people who are
really talking big

on being against Russia and everything

are people who can't even point out

where the hell Ukraine is on the map.

They don't know anything about Ukraine,

where it is on the map;

what is the history of the people
in Crimea;

how that is a little bit different

than the rest of Ukraine

-- eastern Ukraine versus the
rest of Ukraine.

And you get to see those people,

and that is the playback of what
it was during the Cold War:

it's the ideology.

And maybe part of it

-- you may agree or disagree --

is the psychology of the masses.

We love to have heroes,

and we also love to have antagonists
and enemies.

That gets us going.

Nothing to revive that
nationalistic feeling

like "big, bad, evil enemy." [laughter]

And al-Qaeda's kind of fading away, man.

It was not really effective anymore.

So, why not bring Putin
and old Russia back,

and sit back and watch people
just fall for it

-- you know, dumbly fall for it --

and get energized.

We are now energized again
with that animosity,

with that competitive streak:

us against them,

the big bad ex-Communist Russians.
[laughs]

With $300 million dollars

in bank accounts
in Western countries. [laughs]

"U-S-A! U-S-A!" Right:

imagine the "#1!" thumb-finger, right?

No, that's absolutely right:

that really did, that struck
a chord with me:

the idea of this nationalistic fervor.

War is the health of the state, right?

And you can't have a war without
an enemy to fight.

And I'm curious...

I want to ask you guys a question,
actually:

I'm curious about how each of you
would respond

to the criticism that has been out,

circulates out there on the Interwebs

-- we touched on this earlier,
a little bit --

the idea that it's not either/or;

it's not this false dichotomy
of good guy or bad guy;

it's much more complicated than that;

the world isn't black-and-white,

it's shades of grey.

And there are certainly...

-- for sure, there's dictators all
over the world

that deserve to be deposed.

I just feel that the US shouldn't be
involved at all,

as in... our interventionist, or whatever.

But this I've seen out there, though:

that, again, if you don't sufficiently
criticize

the governments of, for example, Russia;

or the government of Ukraine;

or the government of Venezuela,
for example:

then you're an apologist for these
regimes,

and you must be pro- whatever
regime is in power.

But see... I mean, me personally

-- and I'd imagine, James, you'd
have a different perspective on this --

because me, personally,

I sort of feel like...

I sort of see it as a duty, almost,

to criticize my own governments, in a way

-- since, this is where my tax dollars go:
I'm paying for this, after all.

This is all happening in my name
and in our name, so to speak;

and we're, in fact, paying for it

-- quite literally.

And in fact, Jon Weiner

wrote a commentary piece about this.

It's not directly related,

but he kind of touched on these
same themes about,

"Why are we paying for this stuff?"

"Why do we keep paying for the
surveillance state,"

"for the national security state?"

And just kind of, it serves as
a good reminder

that we are, indeed, doing just that.

But I am just curious about

how each of you would respond

to that bit of criticism:

that we don't sufficiently criticize
other government

and focus, instead, on the United States.

And as I've said, Peter, Sibel and I
are all in the States;

but James, you are in Japan

-- a Canadian, no less, [laughs]
living in Japan --

so I'd imagine you have
a different perspective on that.

I suppose I do.

And although you say that I
might not agree with that,

in fact I do agree with what
you're saying;

because I think our moral
responsibility starts and...

maybe not "ends,"

but at any rate, it largely contains

the area that overlaps our area of ability

to do something about this.

And you're exactly right:

if you are an American taxpayer
funding the American war machine,

then I think your first obligation
is to be responsible

for where that money is going

and to what's happening to it and with it.

That's the moral responsibility
of someone in the United States.

So I do agree with that principle.

And that's exactly why,

in this age of the American Empire,

the overarching American Empire

-- whose military umbrella, of course,

not only encompasses my home country
of Canada,

but now my adopted country of Japan --

that is why I spend a lot of time

focusing on the American Empire

and its claws that are reaching into

every corner of the globe.

And deservedly so:

I mean, it is certainly a regime

that needs to be held to account.

But I think my critique

with regards to the either/or trap

is beyond that analysis.

Because I think that once people
understand

that yes, you're going to have people
in the United States...

of course, there are the people who
rally around the flag,

and then there are the people who
resist that

and will critique the US government.

But again, both sides of that

are playing into the same dichotomy.

And that's not to say that we shouldn't

be criticizing the US government and
what it's doing;

it's not to be saying that we
shouldn't spend all of our time

-- or most of our time, or the majority
of our time, or more of our time --

criticizing the other side of that debate.

It's just to understand that when critiquing
the United States,

we're not doing so in a way

that implies that the other side is right.

And that might be more philosophical
than it is practical. [laughter]

And that's why I understand there
are a lot of people

who have problems with this analysis,

and why there's... I've gotten some
kickback

from some people who say,

"Well, what are you talking about?"

"America is clearly the aggressor here."

And I agree: again, America

-- and NATO generally --

is, sort of, the aggressor

in the Ukrainian situation;

and I do agree with that principle.

But, again:

it does not make Putin an angel.

And I am just very, very, concerned

about how this can turn into a conflict

that it doesn't have to be.

And again, that's all very theoretical
and philosophical, [laughter]

so I will turn it over to Peter,

who hasn't spoken very much himself
on this,

and get his opinion on this.

Where do you stand on this, Peter?

Well, Guillermo, what you're touching on

is what I consider to be the way policy

and issues like this, conflicts,

are reduced to cartoon levels.

And I take it back to Poppy Bush

and his grand invasion of Panama.

And he first worked over the
American public

to demonize Manuel -- what was his name?

[laughs] Noriega, Manuel Noriega.

See? We forget these cartoon guys!
[laughter]

And then, of course, was
Operation Desert Storm.

He intentionally mispronounced "Sad-dăm"

and tried to turn him into this
super-evil character.

And so this is something that, I think,

their market research has shown:

the American people are pretty easy
to buffalo with.

And you create these extreme images
of good and bad,

and you demonize your opponent

with everything from halitosis

to false claims of nuclear and
biological weapons,

to the point where people

-- it triggers that nationalist response:

"Well, we're the good guys: "

"everything we do is right."

And this surfaced shortly

after Yanukovich was deposed;

and the meme that was attributed
to Angela Merkel,

that was then exaggerated and hyped
in the American media,

was that "Putin is crazy."

And that he is in a different orbit,

or on a different planet.

And there are a lot of negative things

that you can correctly say about
Vladimir Putin,

but I don't think he's crazy.

I think he's a very smart and
calculating man.

And so this was just another example

-- to me --

of using this kind of cartoon approach,

to really create these monsters

that the public would want to tilt at.

Well, actually, one of the things that...

one of the points that
Guillermo's question

raised for me, brought up

-- which was... I think it's a very
going point --

it's not exactly on the same channel

of the thought that we had been
discussing,

but when it comes to the dollars and
money and the taxpayers, et cetera,

I want to point out two other facts here
at play.

Number one: even though it has been
on the back pages

-- I do the aggregated news at
Boiling Frogs Post --

NATO, for the past few days, has
been screaming

and saying they have been
suffering budget-wise.

And here, what's happening with
Ukraine and Russia

shows how badly they need to
supplement NATO's budget,

and increase it, and expand it.

And with all the tension going on,

I believe they're gonna sail through
that, too.

Because, again

-- with NATO, as well --

after the fall of the Soviet Union,

you had the rest of the NATO
member nations saying,

"Well, you know what? Cold War is over."

So, and with all the austerity

and everything happening all over Europe,

it was kind of a sticking-point issue
with the Europeans,

of increasing NATO's budget.

But now, you just watch and see how
quickly

they're gonna be able to raise their
budget

-- NATO --

without having much screaming

or the dissent from the public.

Now, staying back here in the
United States,

I talked about the pause on Syria.

There is another issue we have
had a pause on;

and that is the debt ceiling,

and all this... our own austerity:

"We are going to cut on defense."

"Look at Pentagon expenditure,"

"this mammoth that is getting
so big and fat!"

Guess what?

The deadline is approaching for debt
ceiling, OK?

And one of the things that's going
to happen

with the current hiking-up of the
tension with Russia,

the revival of Cold War mentality:

you are not going to see much argument

in the United States Congress
on debt ceiling,

and especially as it applies

on expenditure on intelligence
and on Pentagon.

Take a look at Google News,

and put the keywords in there:

and put "budget;" "intelligence budget"
and the "defense budget."

And you're going to see how
they are linking

the current situation and tension

and everything that is happening

-- the posturing --

to, "Have we become too weak, as defense?"

I read another headline

-- I didn't read the entire article --

talking about,

"Isn't it time to expand the CIA "

"and have them refocus on
their espionage activities,"

"and with what's happening in Russia?"

"Because CIA has become too small or weak"

"in terms of its own espionage
activities against Russians."

So what we're gonna see with all this is,

next time when it comes up

-- which, it's going to come up:

all the negotiations and discussions
in Congress

with the debt ceiling and budget, and
cutting the defense and intelligence --

you're not gonna hear a peep

from any of the representatives.

Nobody is gonna dare to be not
nationalistic and American [laughter]

--during this tough, scary time
against Russia --

not to raise the debt ceiling,

and not to expand this already
-ginormous Pentagon further.

Because that's another great
externality, positive externality

-- that is, providing the situation,
the posturing,

the exaggeration with Russia --

is, what's going to happen
domestically here.

Because our economies suck, OK? [laughter]

And that itself has become a
sticking point.

I know the Tea Party has been using it;

libertarians, they have been using it;

people have been screaming;

unemployment hasn't really
recovered that much.

And having this

-- as it did with Cold War for
40 years, 50 years --

"No matter how much you spend,
it's not enough, dude. Spend more."

And we, if we are real Americans,

if we are proud of our flag,

we're gonna say,

"What do you mean, you're gonna increase
it by $5 billion? Make that $50!"

"There is that big, big bad evil
Russians there."

So that's another thing we're gonna see;

and as a taxpayer, Guillermo,

I'm very concerned. [laughter]

Well, just to back you up on that point,

I saw a tweet from our old friend

NATO Secretary Anders
Fogh-Rasmussen the other day

saying exactly that:

"Now is the time to start increasing
the NATO budget again."

And so I replied with something
to the effect of

"You bloodletting psychopath,"

or something like that [laughter]

-- which received a lot of re-tweets,
thankfully.

That gets re-tweeted; exactly, yeah...

No, but I think you're exactly right:

we can see this coming.

And we've been experiencing it here

in the Asia-Pacific region for
a while now,

with the new threat of the
Chinese boogeyman

-- and that being the Asia-Pacific pivot

and the increase in the military
budgets here:

now there's another front

on this New Cold War,
as it's being termed.

If you don't mind,

I'd like to hijack this conversation

and steer it towards our
other topic of Syria

and the Seymour Hersh article
in the London Review of Books

that came out recently.

Because I actually have
to get running along

to another interview at a quarter
past the hour.

So I just wanted to turn to this:

this issue of Seymour Hersh's new article.

And for people who haven't seen it,

it is at LRB.co.uk,

"The Red Line and the Rat-Line."

And basically, talking about
the Syrian chemical weapons

attacking Gouda last year,

and the intelligence that was
being formed around that

-- that was trying to put the blame
on Assad, but that tended to backfire;

and that's why the whole operation
to bomb Syria was called off.

For people who don't know,
this is basically

a continuation of Seymour's
reporting

-- Hersh's reporting: I shouldn'
t be on a first-name basis

with someone I don't know,
I suppose [laughter] --

with Hersh's reporting in the LRB
back in December,

and basically this is just a continuation
of that

with more behind-the-scenes details.

And of course, like every other
Seymour Hersh article,

it's based on insider accounts

of anonymous intelligence officials

and people who are involved
in these conversations;

so take it for what it's worth.

And I want to... in fact,

specifically to ask Sibel's opinion
on what it's worth,

because I know you've met...

talked to Seymour in person,

and you know him to a certain extent.

And you know, here he is writing
this article now

-- months and months and months
and months after the incident;

and months and months and months
after we've been talking about this --

to come out with the behind-the-scenes
details of, for example,

Erdoğan's visit to the White House
last year

and what that was all about,

and what those officials were saying.

And, in fact, coming out exactly
to confirm

what you and I were talking about

in our conversation in January,

about Erdoğan and his reverse-engineering.

And he quotes, for example, one
intelligence official

as saying that during...

"By the end of 2012 Erdoğan was pissed,

"and felt that he was left hanging
on the vine."

"It was his money, and the cut-off
was seen as a betrayal."

Basically, the cut-off of the Syrian
invasion plans and everything:

so, Erdoğan felt that he was holding
the bag;

so he wanted to stage something
to get back into it.

So it puts all this blame on what
Erdoğan was doing

in engineering this chemical
weapons attack.

Very interesting:

very interesting this is coming out now,

in the way that it is

-- from a source that clearly has
a lot of sources

on the inside of the White House,
and intelligence officials,

and people who want to leak this to him

for their own specific reasons.

Sibel, why is Seymour Hersh coming out
with this now,

six years into the Obama administration

-- who he has not criticized at all,
really,

substantively, so far?

And that's a good way of starting
this question,

because we have always talked about

the importance of context and history.

It always comes up during our roundtable,

how it is with media:

they never provide that.

And it's so important to quickly
provide that context.

Because I wrote several articles:

in a way, politely

-- which is not my usual modus operandi --

politely, I had been criticizing
Seymour Hersh.

And in one of my articles,

I went back and I counted his
novella-like articles

during the Bush administration.

And during this time,

he also wrote an entire book:

a very thick book.

He wrote, for New Yorker,

16 articles during the Bush
administrations,

and on average,

every one of these articles were
10 pages long

-- single-spaced, tiny little fonts
[laughs] --

at New Yorker.

And then about year-and-a-half
, two years ago,

I went back and I counted.

During the Obama administration,

he had one

-- and it had nothing to do with any of

Obama administration's wars and black ops,

et cetera, et cetera.

And during the Obama administration

we have had so much happening.

You know, we had Libya;

and where was Seymour Hersh?
[looks around]

Absent.

And we had Egypt happening,

and where was Seymour Hersh?
[looks around]

Absent. W

e have had... you know, the Syria
situation,

we've had that since 2011.

In fact, Boiling Frogs Post was one
of the first sites

that reported Americans

-- NATO and US troops --

training the rebels in southern Turkey

using the US base in southern Turkey,

İncirlik Base in Adana.

And this is November, OK?

This is October, November 2011:

where was Seymour Hersh? [looks around]

Nowheres to be seen.

NDAA...you name it: he has been absent.

Very conveniently:

because we have had a Democrat president,

and because the New Yorker has
been very happy to say,

"We give all your salary, just shut up;"

"go away, have a vacation."

"Once we have the Republican, come back"

"and just start where you left off, OK?"

Now, I know him.

He's been a friend.

As a person, I respect him;

I like him.

But as a journalist,

he is a highly biased, highly
partisan person

-- which is, again, a norm with
mainstream media.

Because he's been working for
The New Yorker,

and all you have to do, look at
The New Yorker.

As far as this article is concerned,

it is not like lots of misleading stuff.

No, it's a decent article.

There are some really good points
in these articles

and I wouldn't be surprised

-- and we have discussed this;

even, we were talking about the fact,

that probably that was a
false-flag operation,

with this sarin case with Syria.

And most likely, Turkey was going
to be the country

that was going to come up with this,

saying, "Oh, here is is: we've proved."

In fact, even after the international
community

ruled out Assad as the source

-- and Assad's regime as the source
of those chemical operations --

Turkey said, "We don't accept that."

"We're gonna have our own labs
examine it." [laughs]

"And most likely, we're going to arrive
at a different conclusion."

So I don't even disagree that that
hypothesis, theory:

that most likely Turkey was behind this;

it was made up.

But what Seymour Hersh has done here is,

he has put a lot of things on Turkey
and Erdoğan.

And especially now,

especially since for the past six months
to a year,

US has been totally...

upped the propaganda against Erdoğan.

And this is Fethullah Gülen:

the imam with the CIA operation,

trying to oust him;

and, of course, the rift between

Erdoğan's administration and
Fethullah Gülen.

And they did their best

-- and this is the neocons;

this is the Israel lobby;

this is the Obama administration,

with the mainstream media here
in the United States

talking about how he's become unpopular

-- and guess what?

The results came back

-- the elections results --

and the party didn't even lose

less than 2 percent popularity

relative to...

compared to two years, and four years,

and six years before with the elections.

So for Seymour Hersh to come righ
t at this point

to write this, to put all this thing,

and the focus, on Erdoğan and on Turkey;

yet, Seymour Hersh did not talk about

-- and despite all his "high-level US
military sources

and US intelligence sources" --

he's not talking about how in 2011,

it was NATO and the US training
the rebels there.

It was US,

and it has been the US and NATO,

directing all these scenarios,

using Turkey

-- because Turkey is the neighbor
and it's right there across the border --

against the Assad administration.

And just making this...

you can take all these different...

cherry-pick all sorts of bads,

throw in a few hypotheses,

and arrive at any conclusion you
want to arrive.

And with Seymour Hersh, in this case,

it's even more pathetic:

there is no conclusion.

He's saying,

"Probably, most likely, possibly, maybe,"

"Erdoğan and the Turks were setting
this up as a false flag."

Well, we talked about that.

We talked about that:

this is highly possible, sure.

So, what's the deal?

But what it has achieved, this article,

is what Israel

-- and what the neocons, with all their
neocon-related media publications --

have been doing against Erdoğan
administration:

the current administration,

the democratically-elected administration
in Turkey.

And he is echoing the Israelis,

the Zionists, the neocons.

And there is no difference between

the tone of Seymour Hersh's article

and, let's say, some of the neocon
Zionists that we have been talking about

who have been writing at Washington Post

and New York Times against Turkey,
and Turkey and Syria.

Who is the director and the producer

of all these situations with Syria?

It's been the United States of America.

Look: Obama is sending all these tanks,
now, to the rebels.

To come and say,

"This is some sort of a 'kinda'"

-- and to put it in Seymour Hersh's
terms --

"independent move by Erdoğan and Turkey,"

that is really hypocritical.

And considering the situation the
United States put Turkey in:

because US used Turkey, did all the stuff;

and of course with Putin...

-- and we talked about that, everything
that happened --

United States decided to put a pause
on Syria.

Guess what?

Who's left out there really naked?

It was Turkey.

It's like,

"You caused this situation, now we are
really big-time enemies..."

-- Assad regime and the Erdoğan
administration, Turkish government --

"and with all the refugees that are
coming to Turkey,"

"all the chaos that is happening
along the borders,"

"now you said you decided to put a pause."

"Well, what are we gonna do?"

So Erdoğan has been saying,

"Heck with you! We're gonna do
some of this stuff ourselves."

Well, obviously Obama is saying,

"Not so fast, we are doing it too.
Let's do it all together." [laughter]

So it's back on again:

the Syria game is warming up,
and it's back on again.

Anyone else? [laughter]

Well, a couple of things.

One is that I share Sibel's frustration
with Sy Hersh,

and I canceled my subscription to
The New Yorker a couple of years ago

because they weren't publishing
him anymore.

I miss the cartoons.

What I will say is that his article did
confirm some important things

that we could only speculate about before.

Our friend Pepe Escobar...

who was the first to relate the
Benghazi episode

to gun-running of Libyan arms into Syria;

and Hersh advances that to the
recipient party,

being al-Nusra Front

-- which, of course, is widely reported

as being al-Qaeda-linked in the
American media.

The other piece:

I think, that while we can quibble

with some of the unsourced information
that Hersh published,

I think that the bottom

is that it destroys the credibility of
Obama and Kerry

in their assertions last August that,

"We know. We know this, we know that,
we know-know-know."

And they were lying.

And that part is extremely clear.

Now

-- also sourced through Pepe Escobar --

my leading suspect for the supplier
of the ingredients

for the crude chemical weapon that
apparently was used in Gouda

was Bandar and the Saudis.

So in some ways, Hersh appears

to be providing some exculpatory
information

regarding at least a direct Saudi role

in the use of chemical weapons in Syria.

But I also think that the benefit
of this story is

-- to the extent that Americans
become aware of it;

and that's another problem --

is that, because it was published
in London,

there are blog article about it,

but very little has surfaced in the
corporate media

-- at least to my knowledge.

But to the extent that people know
about it,

I think that it will give further pause

to any aggressive American moves in Syria,

and I can only regard that as beneficial.

Uh, well, not much left to say on this,

but I think that what I'll add is that

I had a similar reaction to the article

that you did, Peter, initially.

I sort of saw it as a confirmation

of many of the suspicions that were
already circulating,

that people have talked about.

But I think you made a good point, James,

that most of the confirmation is
done through anonymous sources.

So that's as good as speculation, really:

if you're just going to cite anonymous
sources.

I'll also point out that

-- for anyone who's coming at the
information for the first time,

or who's reading about this rat line
and all this stuff for the very first time

and is citing the Seymour Hersh article
to do so --

I'll just point out what my pal Danny
Benavides pointed out

on Traces of Reality in the latest
"#Terrornoia" update,

that Tony Cartalucci wrote about
this first on Land Destroyer,

"NATO Using Al Qaeda Rat Lines to
Flood Syria With Foreign Terrorists,"

back in October of 2012.

So just want to throw that out there
as evidence that really,

little of this is anything new.

And let me just clarify my position there

on the anonymous sources.

it's not so much that I disbelieve what
those sources are saying in the article,

because I'm sure Hersh does have
those types of contacts.

But my point is more to the effect
that these sources

are allowed to say these types of things

at a certain time that's strategically
to the benefit

of one or another party within these,

sort of, factions of government.

So I think that...

why is this coming out now,

at this particular point?

And I think that's in line with Sibel's
overall point,

that this is the attempt to
demonize Erdoğan

at this particular time.

And I wanna add...

And that's... pardon me,

but that's the strategic leak

that propels the Hersh article:

which is, that the US is brushing
back Erdoğan.

Right.

And I want to add one thing

-- and this has... not really... nothing
to do with Syria or Turkey --

and that boils down to the discussion of

the "real journalism, pseudo-journalism,
somewhere-in-between journalism"

that we have been having here.

Tony Cartalucci, you mentioned:

I have been following him.

I really like his writings.

He's been a great analyst.

And as I said,

Boiling Frogs Post broke this story
on the Syria in 2011.

And James interviewed some sources,

including a source from Syria.

So you're looking at all

these independent, alternative,
small journalists

who have been doing all this reporting
on Syria,

and even our source was attacked:

"Well, how did we establish that much
credibility?"

Even though he was proved to be
absolutely solid

with what he provided to us.

So, we have gotten much more than... after

-- at the end of this whole stage
with Syria --

doing nothing for six years,

Seymour Hersh comes back and
writes a six-page article.

Saying, "Dude, where have you been?"
[laughter]

OK? Number one.

Number two:

with all your resources, with
all your contacts,

you came up with this.

A., It's old story, even though it
confirms some of the stuff.

B., We have had all these
independent journalists

putting all this stuff forward.

And so it just shows you that
independent media

-- and some of the real, true
independent journalists --

are doing work superior

to those formerly Pulitzer-winning people.

And for some of them I would say,

instead of taking this six, eight years'
absence,

either say, "I have reached senility
stage,"

and goddamn retire.

And go away and enjoy all the money
you have made

from all of this stuff

-- good for you, you have done some
great work --

you're a good friend, I like you,

I have enjoyed all of our gatherings
and everything

-- but just for the dignity, say,

"You know what? I'm retired now."

"I'm 75, and I just make myself look
so dumb,"

"and without integrity, going away
and taking a vacation for eight years"

"when it's a Democrat becoming
the President. And I'm..."

Not for Seymour Hersh: it's for everyone.

Just get the hell out of the industry, OK?

Go and enjoy your money and
don't come back.

Or, if you want to be a journalist,

and if you want to look like
you are someone,

or if you want to show that
you are someone

who deserves to be recognized
as a great journalist,

then do the journalism like
a goddamn journalist does,

regardless of who is in the office, OK?

Do your research, write your novellas,

great articles that you wrote
during the Bush administration.

I didn't disagree with a single article
he wrote:

they were fantastic.

I was saying "hooray!" to him.

But guess what?

I mean, it really lowers

and makes a person stinky

to come and take a six years' vacation.

So it's time for Seymour Hersh, I believe

-- and I hope if he's listening to it,
he will take a cue.

Retire, go play tennis

-- he loves playing tennis --

and just go away, OK?

And put your Pulitzers over there
on the wall, but go away.

But don't do these "paid vacation
by New Yorker,"

because that's not journalism.

And that's my last word on this.

And on that note...

Sibel, don't hold back: tell us what
you really think! [laughter]

Oh, no, I won't. No, no, way.

On that note:

our thanks to Sibel Edmonds,

James Corbett,

Guillermo Jimenez,

and I'm Peter B. Collins.

Thanks for joining us for the
Boiling Frogs Post Roundtable.

[Captioned by "Adjuvant"]
[CC-BY 4.0]