A restrained but seemingly incredulous reporter questioned the official representative about her use of terms.
REPORTER QUESTION: Okay. So you believe -- the Administration believes that the Ukrainian military has shown restraint in its operations in the east?
MS. PSAKI: Yes.
REPORTER QUESTION: Okay. " so when you talked about human rights abuses, what were you referring to before?
MS. PSAKI: By Russian separatists?
The definition of terms prevails. When separatists act to protect themselves against troops sent by the central government, it is a human rights abuse. When the Kiev troops abuse human rights, kill and injure their citizens, it is an unfortunate incident.
The reporter couldn't resist memorializing the contradiction.
REPORTER QUESTION: An unfortunate incident isn't necessarily a human rights abuse.
MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.
The bombardment of cities by Ukraine's government is completely ignored. How else could the official U.S. representative make the following statement?
REPORTER QUESTION: -- [So] the difference between an unfortunate incident and a human rights abuse, I think -- correct me if I'm wrong -- is intent, right? " an intention to commit an abuse, as opposed to an accident.
MS. PSAKI: Sure. That's --
REPORTER QUESTION: And you don't see that the -- any -- that any of the unfortunate incidents committed by the Ukrainian military have been actual abuses. Is that correct?
MS. PSAKI: That is our view. Yes.
That may be the view of Ms. Psaki but it is not the view of the citizens of the United States. Using the military of the central government against citizens is totally unacceptable. The clear reluctance of the public to support the U.S. policy in the Ukraine would turn to absolute outrage were it not for the corporate media's exquisite self-censorship of news and cogent analysis on the situation in Ukraine.
Why would the administration take the risk of supporting the Ukraine government attacking its citizens?
Why not?
In 1932, 10,000 World War I veterans converged on Washington, DC demanding payment of their promised bonus for the war effort. The Great Depression was under way and the veterans needed the bonus just to survive. They camped out in the near the capitol. When the Bonus marchers refused to leave at the order of President Herbert Hoover, the U. S. Army took action. General Douglas MacArthur ordered "cavalry with drawn sabers, and infantry with fixed bayonets" to attack and drive the veterans from Washington.
As dreadful as that incident was, it is no match for a central government bombarding cities in order to eradicate undesirable political factions in those cities.
There is no justice or rationale for such an attack in the Ukraine or anywhere else. In terms of governing a nation, it is the height of immorality.
What desperation infects the White House, Congress, and their masters to justify support for the bestial actions of the Ukraine government?
Is this part of a larger effort to start up a new Cold War with Russia? The defense industry would reap significant benefits from a new global war against an old enemy. This is a nonstarter. The public is indifferent and the financial powers are not unified in their support of this false flag. A blue ribbon list of major U.S. corporations (Exxon, Microsoft, etc.) was slated to attend Russia's recent St. Petersburg Economic Forum conference. President Obama had to apply direct pressure to intimidate many to stay away, an action that may damage those who complied. This will hardly engender support for new Cold War.
Have the neoconservatives from the Iraq War disaster taken over foreign policy again? It would seem so with the State Department's Victoria Nuland, a long-term neocon, at the helm of the coup in the Ukraine, right down to the selection of the interim leader. But, the neocons can be benched at any time unless there is some overriding use for them.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
7
6
4
