And so we have continued ever since to this day, as, in name of "promoting peace and democracy," we routinely undermine and overthrow foreign governments. Often those victimized governments are democratically elected and replaced by dictatorships: Iran in 1953, South Vietnam in 1963, Chile in 1973, to name just a few.
And this is what we did, when we stirred up all that trouble in Ukraine two years ago.
Likewise, Vlad Putin will do his damndest to influence our politics in Russia's favor.
That's Putin's job: assuring the security and protecting the sovereignty of the Russian Federation. If he didn't do it, he would be replaced by someone who would -- likely someone more belligerent and less restrained than Putin.
So if you are truly upset about meddling with the domestic politics of foreign nations, start with the CIA. (For more, see William Greider's "We Should be Shocked, Shocked, at Reports of Russian Interference in US Elections.)
Myth #3: Hillary Clinton will win in November because she is "the people's choice."
Yes, Clinton will win, but not for the reasons you think.
True, The Donald is furiously engaged in self-destruction. He is attacking the wrong enemies -- notably, the Khan family. Also true, Trump has enraged the black and Hispanic voters, along with most women voters. Consequently, Trumps poll numbers are plummeting.
But the corporate media will not report the most significant reason that Clinton's election in November is foreordained: the oligarchs and the "deep state" that control our politics, our foreign policy, and our media, want Hillary to win, and what the oligarchs and their media want, they generally get. As Gilens and Page concluded in their landmark study "majorities of the American public actually have little influence over the policies our government adopts."
The National Rifle Association's veto of the authenticated desire of up to ninety percent of the American public for gun safety reform is but one of along list corporate and plutocratic dismissals of public opinion. Add to that, the manipulation of numerous Congressional elections and, most significantly, the Presidential elections of 2000 and 2004. (This is a huge story that I can't pursue here. Instead, follow this link and then check out the links at the end.
And why would the ruling oligarchs prefer Clinton to Trump?
First and foremost, the oligarchs want the government of the United States of America to be stable, dependable, and respected abroad. They do not want that government to be led by an autocratic, egomaniacal lunatic. Their "markets" require nothing less than this.
Second, despite that progressive wish-list that Hillary Clinton read in her acceptance speech, the oligarchs are well- aware that the bought-and-paid-for Congress will put a kibosh on virtually all of those programs and policies, just as they did with Barack Obama.
Third, the Wall Street banksters did not pay Hillary Clinton a quarter million dollars each time she read an hour-long speech to them, simply because the speeches were just that brilliant. No, they paid for her loyalty, and they expect a return on their investment. So look for another Wall Street regular like Tim Geitner, Larry Summers, or Robert Rubin as the next Secretary of the Treasury. Joseph Stiglitz, Paul Krugman or Robert Reich need not apply.
Fourth. if Hillary is elected, the champagne corks will be flying at the Pentagon, and throughout the Military-Industrial Complex. Clinton is a dedicated super-hawk. Remember that when Sec. Clinton urged Obama to invade Syria, the President overruled her. After January, 2017 she will do the over-ruling, if any ; the buck will stop at her Oval Office desk. Then Cold War II will heat up and the world will be a much more dangerous place. (This claim requires a separate essay. Stay tuned).
The 2000 election showed us all what the oligarchy is capable of once they pre-ordain the result of a Presidential election: purge lists, "butterfly ballots," paperless unverifiable DRE voting machines, a media ambush of the opposition candidate (remember Gore's "earth tones" and "inventing the internet"?), and, if all that fails, a compliant Supreme Court.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
3
2
1
