Wednesday, August 9, 2017

Korea: forgotten nuclear threats

Trump is not the first American to threaten Korea with a destruction the likes of which the world has never seen before. Commanding General Douglas MacArthur wanted to hit 25 targets in Korea and China with nuclear weapons. We now know this is real reason President Truman removed him is such haste.

If we want to understand why the government of North Korea is so bent on having the ability to nuke the United States, and why the North Korean people support this goal, we have come to grips with what should be called another American holocaust, the near complete destruction of Korea and the murder of more than 3 million civilians. Below we have reprinted a piece written by Bruce Cumings and published by Le Monde 13 years ago because it has never been more relevant.

This BBC documentary gives us a candid view of the terrible inhumanity and racism with which the IS conducted the Korean War. Years ago we retrieved it from obscurity and gave it a home on YouTube. It it the closest thing to Vietnam: American Holocaust, that we know of. A Korea: American Holocaust is a film needs to be made.

Kill Them All | BBC Documentary on Korean War

Republished from Le Monde diplomatique, December 2004:

Korea: forgotten nuclear threats

The media claim that North Korea is trying to obtain and use weapons of mass destruction. Yet the United States, which opposes this strategy, has used or threatened to use such weapons in northeast Asia since the 1940s, when it did drop atomic bombs on Japan.
by Bruce Cumings
THE forgotten war - the Korean war of 1950-53 - might better be called the unknown war. What was indelible about it was the extraordinary destructiveness of the United States’ air campaigns against North Korea, from the widespread and continuous use of firebombing (mainly with napalm), to threats to use nuclear and chemical weapons (1), and the destruction of huge North Korean dams in the final stages of the war. Yet this episode is mostly unknown even to historians, let alone to the average citizen, and it has never been mentioned during the past decade of media analysis of the North Korean nuclear problem.

Korea is also assumed to have been a limited war, but its prosecution bore a strong resemblance to the air war against Imperial Japan in the second world war, and was often directed by the same US military leaders. The atomic attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki have been examined from many different perspectives, yet the incendiary air attacks against Japanese and Korean cities have received much less attention. The US post-Korean war air power and nuclear strategy in northeast Asia are even less well understood; yet these have dramatically shaped North Korean choices and remain a key factor in its national security strategy.

Napalm was invented at the end of the second world war. It became a major issue during the Vietnam war, brought to prominence by horrific photos of injured civilians. Yet far more napalm was dropped on Korea and with much more devastating effect, since the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) had many more populous cities and urban industrial installations than North Vietnam. In 2003 I participated in a conference with US veterans of the Korean war. During a discussion about napalm, a survivor who lost an eye in the Changjin (in Japanese, Chosin) Reservoir battle said it was indeed a nasty weapon - but “it fell on the right people”. (Ah yes, the “right people” - a friendly-fire drop on a dozen US soldiers.) He continued: “Men all around me were burned. They lay rolling in the snow. Men I knew, marched and fought with begged me to shoot them . . . It was terrible. Where the napalm had burned the skin to a crisp, it would be peeled back from the face, arms, legs . . . like fried potato chips” (2).

Soon after that incident, George Barrett of the New York Times had found “a macabre tribute to the totality of modern war” in a village near Anyang, in South Korea: “The inhabitants throughout the village and in the fields were caught and killed and kept the exact postures they held when the napalm struck - a man about to get on his bicycle, 50 boys and girls playing in an orphanage, a housewife strangely unmarked, holding in her hand a page torn from a Sears-Roebuck catalogue crayoned at Mail Order No 3,811,294 for a $2.98 ‘bewitching bed jacket - coral’.” US Secretary of State Dean Acheson wanted censorship authorities notified about this kind of “sensationalised reporting”, so it could be stopped (3).

One of the first orders to burn towns and villages that I found in the archives was in the far southeast of Korea, during heavy fighting along the Pusan Perimeter in August 1950, when US soldiers were bedevilled by thousands of guerrillas in rear areas. On 6 August a US officer requested “to have the following towns obliterated” by the air force: Chongsong, Chinbo and Kusu-dong. B-29 strategic bombers were also called in for tactical bombing. On 16 August five groups of B-29s hit a rectangular area near the front, with many towns and villages, creating an ocean of fire with hundreds of tons of napalm. Another call went out on the 20 August. On 26 August I found in this same source the single entry: “fired 11 villages” (4). Pilots were told to bomb targets that they could see to avoid hitting civilians, but they frequently bombed major population centres by radar, or dumped huge amounts of napalm on secondary targets when the primary one was unavailable.

In a major strike on the industrial city of Hungnam on 31 July 1950, 500 tons of ordnance was delivered through clouds by radar; the flames rose 200-300 feet into the air. The air force dropped 625 tons of bombs over North Korea on 12 August, a tonnage that would have required a fleet of 250 B-17s in the second world war. By late August B-29 formations were dropping 800 tons a day on the North (5). Much of it was pure napalm. From June to late October 1950, B-29s unloaded 866,914 gallons of napalm.

Air force sources delighted in this relatively new weapon, joking about communist protests and misleading the press about their “precision bombing”. They also liked to point out that civilians were warned of the approaching bombers by leaflet, although all pilots knew that these were ineffective (6). This was a mere prelude to the obliteration of most North Korean towns and cities after China entered the war.

China joins the war

The Chinese entry caused an immediate escalation of the air campaign. From November 1950, General Douglas MacArthur ordered that a wasteland be created between the fighting front and the Chinese border, destroying from the air every “installation, factory, city, and village” over thousands of square miles of North Korean territory. As a well-informed British attaché to MacArthur’s headquarters observed, except for Najin near the Soviet border and the Yalu dams (both spared so as not to provoke Moscow or Beijing), MacArthur’s orders were “to destroy every means of communication and every installation, and factories and cities and villages. This destruction is to start at the Manchurian border and to progress south.” On 8 November 1950, 79 B-29s dropped 550 tons of incendiaries on Sinuiju, “removing [it] from off the map”. A week later Hoeryong was napalmed “to burn out the place”. By 25 November “a large part of [the] North West area between Yalu River and south to enemy lines is more or less burning”; soon the area would be a “wilderness of scorched earth” (7).

This happened before the major Sino-Korean offensive that cleared northern Korea of United Nations forces. When that began, the US air force hit Pyongyang with 700 500-pound bombs on 14-15 December; napalm dropped from Mustang fighters, with 175 tons of delayed-fuse demolition bombs, which landed with a thud and then blew up when people were trying to retrieve the dead from the napalm fires.

At the beginning of January General Matthew Ridgway again ordered the air force to hit the capital, Pyongyang, “with the goal of burning the city to the ground with incendiary bombs” (this happened in two strikes on 3 and 5 January). As the Americans retreated below the 38th parallel, the scorched-earth policy of torching continued, burning Uijongbu, Wonju and other small cities in the South as the enemy drew near (8).

The air force also tried to destroy the North Korean leadership. During the war on Iraq in 2003 the world learned about the MOAB, “Mother of All Bombs”, weighing 21,500 pounds with an explosive force of 18,000 pounds of TNT. Newsweek put this bomb on its cover, under the headline “Why America Scares the World” (9). In the desperate winter of 1950-51 Kim Il Sung and his closest allies were back where they started in the 1930s, holed up in deep bunkers in Kanggye, near the Manchurian border. After failing to find them for three months after the Inch’on landing (an intelligence failure that led to carpet-bombing the old Sino-Korean tributary route running north from Pyongyang to the border, on the assumption that they would flee to China), B-29s dropped Tarzan bombs on Kanggye. These were enormous 12,000-pound bombs never deployed before - but firecrackers compared to the ultimate weapons, atomic bombs.

A blocking blow

On 9 July 1950 - just two weeks into the war, it is worth remembering - MacArthur sent Ridgway a hot message that prompted the joint chiefs of staff (JCS) “to consider whether or not A-bombs should be made available to MacArthur”. The chief of operations, General Charles Bolte, was asked to talk to MacArthur about using atomic bombs “in direct support [of] ground combat”. Bolte thought 10-20 such bombs could be spared for Korea without unduly jeopardising US global war capabilities.

Boite received from MacArthur an early suggestion for the tactical use of atomic weapons and an indication of MacArthur’s extraordinary ambitions for the war, which included occupying the North and handling potential Chinese - or Soviet - intervention: “I would cut them off in North Korea . . . I visualise a cul-de-sac. The only passages leading from Manchuria and Vladivostok have many tunnels and bridges. I see here a unique use for the atomic bomb - to strike a blocking blow - which would require a six months’ repair job. Sweeten up my B-29 force.”

At this point, however, the JCS rejected use of the bomb because targets large enough to require atomic weapons were lacking; because of concerns about world opinion five years after Hiroshima; and because the JCS expected the tide of battle to be reversed by conventional military means. But that calculation changed when large numbers of Chinese troops entered the war in October and November 1950.

At a famous news conference on 30 November President Harry Truman threatened use of the atomic bomb, saying the US might use any weapon in its arsenal (10). The threat was not the faux pas many assumed it to be, but was based on contingency planning to use the bomb. On that same day, Air Force General George Stratemeyer sent an order to General Hoyt Vandenberg that the Strategic Air Command should be put on warning, “to be prepared to dispatch without delay medium bomb groups to the Far East . . . this augmentation should include atomic capabilities”.

General Curtis LeMay remembered correctly that the JCS had earlier concluded that atomic weapons would probably not be useful in Korea, except as part of “an overall atomic campaign against Red China”. But, if these orders were now being changed because of the entry of Chinese forces into the war, LeMay wanted the job; he told Stratemeyer that only his headquarters had the experience, technical training, and “intimate knowledge” of delivery methods. The man who had directed the firebombing of Tokyo in 1945 was again ready to proceed to the Far East to direct the attacks (11). Washington was not worried that the Russians would respond with atomic weapons because the US possessed at least 450 bombs and the Soviets only 25.

On 9 December MacArthur said that he wanted commander’s discretion to use atomic weapons in the Korean theatre. On 24 December he submitted “a list of retardation targets” for which he required 26 atomic bombs. He also wanted four to drop on the “invasion forces” and four more for “critical concentrations of enemy air power”.

In interviews published posthumously, MacArthur said he had a plan that would have won the war in 10 days: “I would have dropped 30 or so atomic bombs . . . strung across the neck of Manchuria”. Then he would have introduced half a million Chinese Nationalist troops at the Yalu and then “spread behind us - from the Sea of Japan to the Yellow Sea - a belt of radioactive cobalt . . . it has an active life of between 60 and 120 years. For at least 60 years there could have been no land invasion of Korea from the North.” He was certain that the Russians would have done nothing about this extreme strategy: “My plan was a cinch” (12).

A second request

Cobalt 60 has 320 times the radioactivity of radium. One 400-ton cobalt H-bomb, historian Carroll Quigley has written, could wipe out all animal life on earth. MacArthur sounds like a warmongering lunatic, but he was not alone. Before the Sino-Korean offensive, a committee of the JCS had said that atomic bombs might be the decisive factor in cutting off a Chinese advance into Korea; initially they could be useful in “a cordon sanitaire [that] might be established by the UN in a strip in Manchuria immediately north of the Korean border”. A few months later Congressman Albert Gore (2000 Democratic candidate Al Gore’s father, subsequently a strong opponent of the Vietnam war) complained that “Korea has become a meat grinder of American manhood” and suggested “something cataclysmic” to end the war: a radiation belt dividing the Korean peninsula permanently into two.

Although Ridgway said nothing about a cobalt bomb, in May 1951, after replacing MacArthur as US commander in Korea, he renewed MacArthur’s request of 24 December, this time for 38 atomic bombs (13). The request was not approved.

The US came closest to using atomic weapons in April 1951, when Truman removed MacArthur. Although much related to this episode is still classified, it is now clear that Truman did not remove MacArthur simply because of his repeated insubordination, but because he wanted a reliable commander on the scene should Washington decide to use nuclear weapons; Truman traded MacArthur for his atomic policies. On 10 March 1951 MacArthur asked for a “D-Day atomic capability” to retain air superiority in the Korean theatre, after the Chinese massed huge new forces near the Korean border and after the Russians put 200 bombers into airbases in Manchuria (from which they could strike not just Korea but also US bases in Japan) (14). On 14 March General Vandenberg wrote: “Finletter and Lovett alerted on atomic discussions. Believe everything is set.”

At the end of March Stratemeyer reported that atomic bomb loading pits at Kadena Air Base on Okinawa were again operational; the bombs were carried there unassembled, and put together at the base, lacking only the essential nuclear cores. On 5 April the JCS ordered immediate atomic retaliation against Manchurian bases if large numbers of new troops came into the fighting, or, it appears, if bombers were launched from there against US assets. On that day the chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission, Gordon Dean, began arrangements for transferring nine Mark IV nuclear capsules to the Air Force’s 9th Bomb Group, the designated carrier for atomic weapons.

The JCS again considered the use of nuclear weapons in June 1951, this time in tactical battlefield circumstances (15) and there were many more such suggestions as the war continued to 1953. Robert Oppenheimer, former director of the Manhattan Project, was involved in Project Vista, designed to gauge the feasibility of the tactical use of atomic weapons. In 1951 young Samuel Cohen, on a secret assignment for the US Defence Department, observed the battles for the second recapture of Seoul and thought there should be a way to destroy the enemy without destroying the city. He became the father of the neutron bomb (16).

The most terrifying nuclear project in Korea, however, was Operation Hudson Harbour. It appears to have been part of a larger project involving “overt exploitation in Korea by the Department of Defence and covert exploitation by the Central Intelligence Agency of the possible use of novel weapons” - a euphemism for what are now called weapons of mass destruction.

The ‘limited war’

Without even using such “novel weapons” - although napalm was very new - the air war levelled North Korea and killed millions of civilians. North Koreans tell you that for three years they faced a daily threat of being burned with napalm: “You couldn’t escape it,” one told me in 1981. By 1952 just about everything in northern and central Korea had been completely levelled. What was left of the population survived in caves.

Over the course of the war, Conrad Crane wrote, the US air force “had wreaked terrible destruction all across North Korea. Bomb damage assessment at the armistice revealed that 18 of 22 major cities had been at least half obliterated.” A table he provided showed that the big industrial cities of Hamhung and Hungnam were 80-85% destroyed, Sariwon 95%, Sinanju 100%, the port of Chinnampo 80% and Pyongyang 75%. A British reporter described one of the thousands of obliterated villages as “a low, wide mound of violet ashes”. General William Dean, who was captured after the battle of Taejon in July 1950 and taken to the North, later said that most of the towns and villages he saw were just “rubble or snowy open spaces”. Just about every Korean he met, Dean wrote, had had a relative killed in a bombing raid (17). Even Winston Churchill, late in the war, was moved to tell Washington that when napalm was invented, no one contemplated that it would be “splashed” all over a civilian population (18).

This was Korea, “the limited war”. The views of its architect, Curtis LeMay, serve as its epitaph. After it started, he said: “We slipped a note kind of under the door into the Pentagon and said let us go up there . . . and burn down five of the biggest towns in North Korea - and they’re not very big - and that ought to stop it. Well, the answer to that was four or five screams - ‘You’ll kill a lot of non-combatants’ and ‘It’s too horrible’. Yet over a period of three years or so . . . we burned down every town in North Korea and South Korea, too . . . Now, over a period of three years this is palatable, but to kill a few people to stop this from happening - a lot of people can’t stomach it” (19).

Bruce Cumings
Original text in English

Syria is the Paris Commune of the 21st Century!

Click here for my posts on the 2016 US Election
Click here for a list of my other blogs on Syria
Click here for a list of my other blogs on Libya

Wednesday, August 2, 2017

Democracy Now ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Oh, the Hypocrisy!

On Monday, Amy Goodman interviewed Steve Phillips on Democracy Now for a segment called "Billion-Dollar Mistake": Democrats Neglect People of Color While Failing to Woo White Trump Voters. Phillips is from Democracy in Color, and is the author of the New York Times best-selling book "Brown is the New White: How the Demographic Revolution Has Created a New American Majority." During the interview Phillips made a comment that definitely should have sparked some discussion, given the way Democracy Now neglected people of color in the election of Donald Trump. They did this by ignoring the role of white nationalism in the election while trying all year to convince progressives to either vote for Jill Stein or stay home:
STEVE PHILLIPS: Yeah. So, the challenge the Democrats face is to focus on the math, and not on the myth, of what happened in 2016. And so, the myth is that all of these Democratic voters, all of these working-class white voters who had supported Obama, defected from the Democrats and then flocked to Donald Trump’s campaign and backed him, and that’s what the—that’s why Democrats lost, and that’s why they have to pursue them to be able to actually try to reassemble their power and get back into positions. But that’s not actually what happened, and it’s certainly not why they lost the election.

We had unprecedented—or, unprecedented in 20 years, black voter turnout drop-off. More than a million fewer black voters came out. And you had a splintering of the progressive white vote. And you had a larger increase of voters for Johnson and Stein—I sometimes call the JohnStein voters—than you did for Trump. And if you look in a place—Wisconsin is where it’s clearest. Trump got fewer voters in Wisconsin than Romney did. So it wasn’t like everybody flocked to him. It’s that the progressive votes splintered and was depressed.
I have added the emphasis. Unlike Stein, Johnson took votes away from Trump as well as Clinton. Clinton lost Wisconsin by 27,257 votes, while 30,980 WI progressives voted for Stein. That is how Trump won the election. This data is from Politico [updated 22 Nov. 2016 - PA updated 2 Dec from ] :

Candidate Count % Michigan [16] Wisconsin [10] Pennsylvania [20]
Donald Trump 61,201,031 47% 2,279,805 1,409,467 2,955,671
Hillary Clinton 62,523,126 48% 2,268,193 1,382,210 2,906,128
Difference 11,612 27,257 49,543
Jill Stein 802,119 0.7% 50,700 30,980 49,678

Given the tireless role Democracy Now played in splintering and depressing the progressive vote last year, this statement should have been met with push back or self criticism. Instead, in a hypocritical fashion, it was passed over in complete silence.

Amy Goodman had Jill Stein on Democracy Now many times before the election. Democracy Now is far and away the most available Left/Progressive media outlet in the United States, as it appears on radio, broadcast TV, cable TV, and the Internet. Its mantra was the Green Party slogan: Don't Vote For the Lesser of Two Evils. By that they meant, don't vote for Clinton and allow less progressive voters to elect Trump. As Steve Phillips noted and the chart above documents, that is exactly what happened.

This is how Democracy Now handled election year 2016:
Nothing depresses the progressive vote like asking them to "Leave Ballots Blank." Trump and Spicer should have been very happy with this line of argument, given how few Republicans are in the DN audience.

^^ This guy gets it ^^

Anybody with any political sense at all understood a vote for Jill Stein was the next best thing to a vote for Donald Trump. Vladimir Putin got it too. That is why a lot of RT air time for Jill Stein played a big role in his plans to get Donald Trump elected. Probably she got more airtime from Russia Today than she did on Democracy Now, given that the former broadcasts continuously. One thing is certain; Jill Stein received more coverage from Democracy Now than any other domestic media outlet. The eight images below represent just a tiny sample of the "About 416 results" Google finds for a search for "Jill Stein" on

We now know that the Russian government was trying to help Donald Trump win the White House. It must have known that Jill Stein had no chance of winning. Their lavish support for Jill Stein was part of their plan to get Trump elected by splintering and depressing the progressive vote.

On the other hand, Jill Stein must have known her Kremlin supporters would not be too happy with her if she was as hard on Trump as she was on Clinton, and she wasn't. Was that collusion?
It is a real shame that Cornel West didn't consider what a white supremacist disaster Donald Trump would be when he was helping Trump win by campaigning for Jill Stein. Now the hits on minorities are coming hard and fast. Last night, the Jeff Sessions Justice Department announced it is going after affirmative action in higher education, and this morning Trump announced new legislation to curb and whiten legal immigration. It is the minorities that are being hurt the most by the Trump presidency, although Cornel "no to the lesser evil" West, maybe not so much.
From that show, we have this prophetic exchange. It begins as Jealous is explaining why he was then backing Clinton after having backed Sanders earlier:
BEN JEALOUS: Well, you know, we came through a primary, and now we have 105 days to keep a madman out of the White House. And we went—you know, we know what happened in 2000. And the reality is that we cannot afford to end up with having an Iraq War because we narrowly lose the White House to somebody who should not be in there, as we did with Bush. So, the reality is, you go through a primary, you come into a convention, and you come out one campaign, in this case to hold onto the White House and keep a neofascist from becoming president.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: But what do you say to those Sanders supporters who feel that, in many respects, Hillary Clinton is more hawkish when it comes to issues of foreign policy and war even than Donald Trump, in some respects?

BEN JEALOUS: If you look at the utter racism that Trump has directed towards people in this country, there is no reason to think that he will not do the same thing when he actually, you know, has his finger on the button. He clearly seems to, you know, have some sort of love affair going on with Putin. I don’t know who that gives comfort to. And he has all the personality characteristics of some of the worst dictators and tyrants we’ve seen around the world. But the reality is here that he will also destroy voting rights, women’s rights, workers’ rights. He will put in a Supreme Court that will take us back very quickly. We used to think that the Voting Rights Act pretty much was sacrosanct in this country. It’s been—you know, great damage has been done to it. This is the first presidential—and quite frankly, you know, my roots, as you know, my family, so much of it is in West Baltimore, and communities like that suffer greatly when we sort of pretend like who’s in president—who is the president does not matter.
After Trump won, it became fashionable for those that said they thought Clinton was going to win to excuse themselves by saying that everybody was sure Clinton was going to win. This is not true. Jealous wasn't sure Clinton would win. I wasn't sure Clinton would win. A lot of people of color have a less delusional read of the strength of white supremacy in America and campaigned hard to keep a madman out of the White House. The Green Party and the DN Left can't say that.

And notice how they completely discount the very thing Jealous zeros in on as the deciding difference between the two candidates - racism. To make their argument that there ain't a hill of beans worth of difference between the Clinton and Trump, they had to downplay the significance of Trump's white nationalist connections because they could show no equivalence in the Clinton camp, Instead they made a spurious argument that Clinton was actually the greater of the two evils because she was more hawkish. Ironically, they fell back onto white chauvinism themselves when they made that argument, as for example, a little later in that show when Jill Stein said:
I agree. Donald Trump is a very dangerous person. He says extremely despicable, reprehensible things. But at the same time, Hillary Clinton has a track record for doing absolutely horrific things, for expanding wars, in the likes of Libya, for example.
Trump supporters, Putin supporters, Assad supporters, Gaddafi supporters, Democracy Now, and Jill Stein are all united in calling the people's armed struggle to overthrow the Libyan dictator that ruled violently for 40 year "Hillary's War." As useful as the label is for their united political purposes, it robs the Libyan people of their agency - they made this history, not Hillary. She only opposed allowing Gaddafi to do what Assad has been allowed to do. For that they hate her. They don't want to tell the true story of a people's struggle against a fascist dictator. They would rather present it as just another Hollywood style Arab uprising led by a blonde.

In a way, it is doubly chauvinistic to call it "Hillary's War" and not "Obama's War," since as president he set the policy. Maybe even trice chauvinistic considering that even within NATO, the US was bringing up the rear with only 17% of the strike missions. A true accounting of what really happened around Libya was not in the interest of these people because they wanted us to forget about the racist Donald Trump and focus on the warmonger Hillary Clinton, and they really didn't have much to work with.

Naturally, after Bernie Sanders took a stand for Democratic Party unity in the name of defeating Trump, Trump went after him:
While Jill Stein did the same thing on Democracy Now:
Since Stein & Baraka support Putin's foreign policy in other countries, it should have surprised no one that they support his goals in the US.
No need to mention Trump's white nationalism here. The focus is on attacking Trump's main opposition. Note the singular word "party." If the Democrat Party is the "Party of War & Wall Street," what are the Republicans?
Glenn Gleenwald on DN, 31 August 2016, talks as if little has changed in Russia in the last half century. Does he think opposition to Russia today is based on anti-communism?
To me, this is one of the more remarkable things of this campaign, which is that any of us who grew up in politics or came of age as an American in the ’60s or the ’70s or the ’80s, or even the ’90s, knows that central to American political discourse has always been trying to tie your political opponents to Russia, to demonizing the Kremlin as the ultimate evil and then trying to insinuate that your political adversaries are somehow secretly sympathetic to or even controlled by Russian leaders and Kremlin operatives and Russian intelligence agencies.
According to frequent DN guest Greenwald, anyone who sees Russian interference on Trump's behalf is just playing the same old red-baiting game of McCarthyism. This is a slick twist because it hides the fact that Russia today is not the Soviet Union, it is leading a worldwide white supremacist movement and is interfering, in an imperialist manner, in the internal politics of many countries, not just the United States.
Funny they should mention that word, but in their parlance Ben Jealous, Steve Phillips and I are the bigots, not Donald Trump and his supporters.
Since they have the same target and theme, why not use Trump's words to attack Clinton?
Although Donald Trump was a DAPL investor and stood to make money from the pipeline, Democracy Now didn't expose that fact until after the election. Before the election they tried to put Hillary Clinton in a no-win situation. She could not answer their demands without losing more of the pro-energy voters Trump was courting.
The day after Steve Phillips was on Democracy Now, Amy Goodman had Jill Stein on, Tuesday, 1 August 2017, for the first time this year. Much of the discussion was about Trump, but curiously, they stayed far away from questions of racism or white nationalism with regards to his administration. It is the one thing that ties his policies together, but they would rather not go there. This is what she had to say about Donald Trump:
Yeah, I mean, Donald Trump is a symptom of a very sick political system. You know, what we see going on in the White House right now, you know, hearing—I think it was yesterday, you reported, I think, on your program that Lindsey Graham is now instructing President Trump that if he continues to harass Jeff Sessions or tries to get rid of him, that, essentially, what he was saying is that—you know, get ready for impeachment hearings. And, you know, to hear that from staunch Republicans, that they’re actually threatening him now, they’re—Lindsey Graham is also, you know, writing a bill to stop Trump from dismissing Mueller at the FBI. So, you know, people really get that Trump is a liability, he’s a disaster. You know, the sparks flying out of the White House now with the dismissal of the chief of staff and, you know, the incredible comments of the communications director—talk about, you know, communications. You couldn’t have a worse example of how not to do communications. You know, they’ve really become the laughingstock of the world, and not just the world, even, you know, in the U.S. And I think they’re becoming a big liability to Republicans. So, you know, I think Donald Trump is very clearly digging his own grave. He’s been a lame-duck president since the beginning. He’s, you know, passed absolutely nothing. He remains a grave danger, because of what the president can do, especially around the military. But, you know, he does seem to be on his way out now, which is a wonderful thing.
No Jill, I don't know. You ignored Trump's white nationalist tendencies before the election when you directed your fire at Clinton. Now you speak of "a very sick political system" without mentioning racism, while both Donald Trump and Jeff Sessions are working feverously to turn back the clock on civil rights.

Behind all the showmanship and comedy, a neo-fascist regime is consolidating power and Jill Stein comes back on Democracy Now after an eight month absence. She doesn't fill us in on all the recent achievements of the Green Party even though I thought the whole idea was to give up any chance of victory in this election so as to build that party. She doesn't come with plans on how to better build the resistance to the Trump assault, instead she has come back to disarm us by telling us he is on his way out and we can start celebrating now!

Syria is the Paris Commune of the 21st Century!

Click here for my posts on the 2016 US Election
Click here for a list of my other blogs on Syria
Click here for a list of my other blogs on Libya