Today's effort from Cathy Wilcox was below par -- a bit lame. The cartoon by Warren in the ST was a fake.

God help us if the major cartoonists are towing the crummy line of the CIA and the Pentagon, and I'm an atheist...

I can imagine what Bill Leak would have done, but this is for another day.

Stephen K. Bannon could barely finish his sentences as he implored the listeners of his Breitbart News radio show to see the new movie “Clinton Cash.”

It was July 20, the homestretch of the 2016 presidential campaign, and Bannon was describing Bill and Hillary Clinton as “scumbags” and “bandits” who had made millions of dollars through political connections.

“Hillary and Bill Clinton are the two single-biggest grifters ever to run for president of the United States,” Bannon told his guest, Peter Schweizer, the author of the book behind the movie.

Bannon, now President Trump’s chief strategist, framed his radio show that day as an urgent effort to reveal important information for voters — but there was more to it.

The show and “Clinton Cash” were components of an intricate multimedia machine comprising nonprofit organizations and private companies that Bannon had leveraged to advance his conservative, populist agenda and bring in millions of dollars. That effort ultimately helped propel Trump into the White House and Bannon into national prominence.

A close look behind Bannon’s radio broadcast that day offers insights about how that machine worked.

As it happened, the research behind “Clinton Cash” had been funded by the Government Accountability Institute, or the GAI, a tax-exempt public charity that Bannon had created a few years earlier and that had paid him hundreds of thousands of dollars as executive chairman, documents show.

“Clinton Cash” had been produced by Glittering Steel and Bannon Film Industries, two companies owned by Bannon, who was one of the screenwriters.

Bannon also was an owner of ARC Entertainment, the firm listed as distributor of the film.

And he was receiving a six- figure salary as executive chairman of Breitbart News, which heavily promoted the film through Bannon’s radio program and its controversial website.

There’s no telling how many in his audience understood the connections. Many of the links are scattered among corporate, court and tax records, as well as in a financial disclosure report for 2016 that the White House released last month.

During the July broadcast, Bannon only hinted at the connections, saying, “We’re now going to put this film up for the whole world to see starting this weekend.”

A Washington Post examination found that Bannon was able to produce more than a dozen conservative documentaries over the past decade by drawing on a network of two dozen nonprofit organizations and private companies. Bannon helped arrange donations from wealthy Republicans to the nonprofits that paid him for films and other work, documents show. At the same time, Bannon and his firms took in at least $2 million from the nonprofits and an additional $5 million from the private companies, records show.

Bannon, who had already made millions on Wall Street, often was paid in multiple ways for each project — a common practice in Hollywood, where he had worked as an entertainment financier. Because he was paid through the nonprofit and private companies, which have limited obligations to disclose details about their activities, the total pay to Bannon remains unknown.

In a personal financial disclosure released by the White House last month, Bannon reported his net worth as between $11.8 million and $53.8 million.

read more:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/how-bannons-multimedia-mac...

It's no accident that the Pentagon launched an unprecedented airstrike against Damascus hours after President Donald Trump removed White House Chief Strategist Steve Bannon from the National Security Council, Cornell Clayton, Director of the Thomas S. Foley Institute of Public Policy and Public Service at Washington State University, asserted.

The analyst told Radio Sputnik that Bannon's presence on the council designed to advise the US president on national security and foreign policy matters was "always an anomaly," adding that his primary task was to "make sure that the NSC was de-operationalized."

"I suspect that [Bannon's] anxiousness about being on the council, in the Principals Committee in particular, was to shape the messaging of US foreign policy towards a more nationalist perspective," Clayton noted, saying this trend has most likely been reversed after the reshuffle. "For instance, we see the strike yesterday in Syria. That's something [Bannon] would have been very much opposed to. I don't think it is a coincidence that Bannon was removed and you see that kind of internationalist policy decision being made right after he was removed."

The NSC reshuffle, which took place Wednesday, also saw General Joseph Dunford, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Dan Coats, Director of National Intelligence, being reinstated to the Principals Committee, while Homeland Security Adviser Tom Bossert was demoted.

read more:

https://sputniknews.com/politics/201704081052442141-pentagon-attack-syri...

President Donald Trump’s missile attack on the Shayrat Airfield in Western Syria was a poorly planned display of imperial muscle-flexing that had the exact opposite effect of what was intended. While the attack undoubtedly lifted the morale of the jihadists who have been rampaging across the country for the last six years, it had no military or strategic value at all. The damage to the airfield was very slight and there is no reason to believe it will impact the Syrian Army’s progress on the ground.

The attack did however kill four Syrian servicemen which means the US troops in Syria can no longer be considered part of an international coalition fighting terrorism. The US is now a hostile force that represents an existential threat to the sovereign government.

Is that the change that Trump wanted?

As of Friday, Russia has frozen all military cooperation with the United States. According to the New York Times:

“In addition to suspending the pact to coordinate air operations over Syria, an accord that was meant to prevent accidental encounters between the two militaries, Russia also said it would bolster Syria’s air defense systems and reportedly planned to send a frigate into the Mediterranean Sea to visit the logistics base at the Syrian port of Tartus….

Dmitri S. Peskov, a spokesman for President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia, said that the cruise missile strikes on Friday represented a “significant blow” to American-Russian ties, and that Mr. Putin considered the attack a breach of international law that had been made under a false pretext. “The Syrian Army has no chemical weapons at its disposal,” Mr. Peskov said.” (New York Times)

The missile attack has ended all talk of “normalizing” relations with Russia. For whatever the reason, Trump has decided that identifying himself and the United States as an enemy of Moscow and Damascus is the way he wants to conduct business. That, of course, is the President’s prerogative, but it would be foolish not to think there will be consequences.

Russia’s Minister of Defense Maj. Gen. Igor Konashenkov issued a statement saying:

“All the accusations against Damascus that it violated the Chemical Weapons Convention of 2013 given by the USA as reasons for the strike are groundless. The Russian Defence Ministry has repeatedly explained that the Syrian troops had not used chemical weapons….

It is to be stressed that in the years 2013-2016 the Syrian government undertook all measures to eliminate chemical weapons, its delivery systems, production facilities. All chemical weapons stocks have been eliminated. The components for their production have been transported from the Syrian Arab Republic to the enterprises of the United States, Finland, Great Britain, and Germany where they have been destroyed.”

This is a hotly contested issue and one that requires greater clarification. The rational approach would be for the UN to send a team of chemical weapons and forensic experts to the site of the bombing to try to figure out what really happened. Trump decided he couldn’t be bothered with such trivialities as a formal investigation. He was more interested in projecting the image of a strong and decisive leader which is why he decided to shoot first and ask questions later. His action was applauded by leaders around the world including Angela Merkel, François Hollande, Recep Erdogan of Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Israel none of who believe that the United States should have to get the nod from the UN Security Council before bombing a sovereign country.

I don’t know who is responsible for the chemical attack at Khan Shaikhoun, but there is an interesting interview on Thursday’s Scott Horton show that suggests that things may not be what they seem. In a 14 minute interview, former CIA officer and Director of the Council for the National Interest, Philip Giraldi, explains what’s happening behind the scenes in the Middle East where “military and intelligence personnel,” “intimately familiar” with the intelligence, say that the narrative that Assad or Russia did it is a “sham.”

I have transcribed a 5 minute segment of the interview here– not because it provides conclusive evidence one way or the other— but because curious readers will find it intriguing. (Any mistakes in the transcript are mine.)

Philip Giraldi– I am hearing from sources on the ground, in the Middle East, the people who are intimately familiar with the intelligence available are saying that the essential narrative we are all hearing about the Syrian government or the Russians using chemical weapons on innocent civilians is a sham. The intelligence confirms pretty much the account the Russians have been giving since last night which is that they hit a warehouse where al Qaida rebels were storing chemicals of their own and it basically caused an explosion that resulted in the casualties. Apparently the intelligence on this is very clear, and people both in the Agency and in the military who are aware of the intelligence are freaking out about this because essentially Trump completely misrepresented what he should already have known — but maybe didn’t–and they’re afraid this is moving towards a situation that could easily turn into an armed conflict.

Scott Horton– Tell me everything you can about your sources or how you are learning about this?

Philip Giraldi– Okay. These are essentially sources that are right on top of the issue right in the Middle East. They’re people who are stationed there with the military and the Intelligence agencies that are aware and have seen the intelligence And, as I say, they are coming back to contacts over here in the US essentially that they astonished at how this is being played by the administration and by the media and in some cases people are considering going public to stop it. They’re that concerned about it, that upset by what’s going on.

Scott Horton– So current CIA officers are thinking about going public right now?

read more:

http://www.unz.com/mwhitney/the-impending-clash-between-the-u-s-and-russia/

For the last six years Western media has indulged itself in reporting Syria, it has stigmatized the Assad government while the opposition is portrayed as more of less the victims, says Middle East expert and journalist Martin Jay.

A terrorist attack on buses used to evacuate some towns in Syria killed as many as 80 children on Saturday, has been widely condemned by humanitarian organizations. The UN has called for greater protection for children across the country.

A massive blast targeted civilians waiting to leave rebel-held areas as part of a deal struck between the government and opposition forces.

RT: The Western media seems to have a tendency to avoid blaming rebels in such incidents as Saturday's attack. But when it comes to Assad, the media always tries to put the blame on the president even if there is no evidence. Why is that?

Martin Jay: Western media for the last six years has really indulged itself and got trapped in its own echo chamber in how it reports on Syria. It stigmatized the Assad government as being essentially the root cause of the problem and how it reports anything from the opposition side as largely more or less the victims, those fighters, whether they are extremists or not, are doing more or less a noble job. And this is what we are seeing here today. It is completely biased reporting of what is a tragic, heart-wrenching story. And I think we are stuck in that echo chamber. Nothing has really changed. If you look at how Western media reported on the Russian bombing in Aleppo and how it was so obsessed with reporting civilian casualties. But then it wasn’t quite so assiduous in its reporting on the US bombing in Mosul. You have a good example of rank hypocrisy, and this is what we are seeing.

RT: After the alleged chemical attack earlier this month, there was no investigation or evidence that Assad was behind it, but the US President took unilateral action against him. However, when as many as 80 children are killed in a suicide attack, we don't hear from him. Why is that?

MJ: He doesn’t seem to follow the events very closely. I don’t think his people are bringing him up to speed. I think he is very selective in how he sees the Middle East and in particular Syria. It worries me how he very casually in interviews with American journalists confuses Syria and Iraq. I don’t think he gets all the picture. And I don’t think he wants all the picture. He has a very limited bandwidth on what he perceives to be important news and this hasn’t reached his radar screen. There has been a statement from Washington but it is such a cursory reference and hardly a really serious point of view at all from America…

RT: Are we going to see Western ambassadors bringing photos of children who died in Saturday's attack to the UN Security Council like Nikki Haley did after the alleged chemical attack?

MJ: I can’t image it…I think a whole load of awkward and difficult questions have to be asked by journalists, by the White House, the Pentagon and Trump’s people which is what exactly is the relationship between the Trump administration and these opposition groups who are responsible for these massacres like Al-Nusra or others in that area. Those are the questions which journalists aren’t asking, and Trump isn’t prepared to answer…Every geopolitical expert or journalist in this part of the world knows perfectly well that Al-Nusra and other extremist groups are funded indirectly by the West via Qatar and Saudi Arabia. It is nothing new, we are not breaking news here…On the question of the photographs, I don’t think anyone is going to present them at any UN council...

read more:

https://www.rt.com/op-edge/385066-syria-convoy-blast-msm/

Martin Jay is an award winning British journalist now based in Beirut who works on a freelance basis for a number of respected British newspapers as well as previously Al Jazeera and Deutsche Welle TV. Before Lebanon, he has worked in Africa and Europe for CNN, Euronews, CNBC, BBC, Sunday Times and Reuters.