BLUM'S WHORE FEINSTEIN HAS SPENT
HER ENTIRE POLITICAL LIFE SNIFFING OUT DEALS
IN CONGRESS THAT HAVE PUT HUNDREDS
OF MILLIONS INTO HER PIMP'S BOTTOMLESS
New York Times voices moral outrage over profiteering military contractors ... in Russia
Bill Van Auken
11 July 2017
In an editorial published Monday, “The Spoils, and Profits, of
Conflict,” the editors of the New
York Times worked themselves into a moral lather over war
profiteering by military contractors.
The subject is unquestionably one worth pursuing in a country that
is engaged in at least seven different military conflicts, has troops stationed
in nearly 150 countries and spends more on arms than the next nine largest
military powers combined.
That these wars translate into massive profits for the arms
industry and obscene fortunes for their stockholders, even as the American
troops who do the killing and dying are drawn overwhelmingly from the working
class and poor, is one of Washington’s dirty little secrets.
But the target of the Times’ umbrage
is not the sprawling US military-industrial complex, but rather a little known
Russian firm, Evro Polis, which, according to sources quoted by the newspaper,
has made a deal with the Syrian government to provide private military
contractors in return for Damascus guaranteeing it a share of the oil revenues
from the areas that it retakes from the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS).
The newspaper describes the deal as “shadowy and secret” and
reports that at the head of the company is a figure “close to President
Vladimir Putin.” It goes on to provide what it presents as a shocking quote
from an unnamed private security consultant that “War is business.”
The Times’ editors,
seemingly conscious that they are treading on thin ice, acknowledge that
“mercenaries have always been around” and even “played a major role with US
forces in Afghanistan and Iraq.” It goes on to cite the infamous 2007 Nisour
Square massacre in Baghdad, in which mercenary gunmen employed by the major US
military contractor Blackwater gunned down 17 Iraqi civilians and wounded
Nonetheless, the newspaper insists, there is something uniquely
nefarious about the deal between Evro Polis and the Syrian government,
declaring that “turning the fight into a private scramble for profit is a
dangerous and ignoble gambit.”
At this stage, after some 16 years of the US “war on terror,” the
decimation of entire societies in the Middle East and the destruction of more
than a million lives as a result of US acts of aggression, who does the Times editorial board
think it is kidding?
Whatever the role of Evro Polis, its connection to the Russian
government and the semi-criminal oligarchy that it represents, the fact of the
matter is that it represents less than small potatoes in relation to the vast
army of mercenary military contractors deployed by Washington, and the
multi-billion-dollar corporations that profit from their exploits.
In Afghanistan today, there are nearly three military contractors
for every US soldier deployed on the ground. In Iraq, contractors are 42
percent of the force fielded by the Pentagon.
As for “shadowy and secret” deals and close relations between
military contractors and top government officials, this is hardly a Russian
innovation. Has it escaped the memory of the Times editors that the largest military
contractor in the Iraq war, scooping up seemingly unlimited billions of dollars
worth of no-bid contracts, was Halliburton (now KBR), whose former CEO was none
other than Vice President Dick Cheney?
This incestuous relationship underscoring the “war is business”
model has been reprised under the current administration, with the elevation of
the former ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson to the post of secretary of state.
And while citing Blackwater (which has since chosen the innocuous
name Academi in an attempt to escape its legacy of blood and filth) as a
fleeting historical reference, the Times doesn’t
bother recalling for its readers that the company’s former CEO Erik Prince is
the brother of current Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos, and that he serves
as an unofficial adviser to Trump, while continuing to reap huge profits off of
the “private security” racket.
As for the feigned outrage over anyone who would dare turn war
into a “scramble for profit,” the truth is that this is precisely what it has
been since the advent of imperialism, and never more nakedly than in the past
quarter century of uninterrupted US military interventions. As the Times foreign affairs
commentator Thomas Friedman infamously commented—after first trying to sell the
illegal invasion of Iraq as a legitimate response to non-existent “weapons of
mass destruction” and a crusade for democracy and human rights in the Middle
East—“I have no problem with a war for oil.”
The feigned shock of Times editorial
page editor James Bennet over Russian military contractors embracing the profit
motive beggars belief. After all, didn’t the newspaper support capitalist
restoration and the dissolution of the Soviet Union? The editorial is merely
one more piece of war propaganda on behalf of those sections of the military
and intelligence apparatus and the ruling establishment as a whole that see
Russia as the foremost obstacle to US imperialism’s drive to assert global
Bennet, the brother of right-wing Democratic Senator Michael
Bennet of Colorado and son of Douglas Bennet, a former top State Department
official who headed the Agency for International Development (AID), a frequent
conduit for CIA operations, is closely attuned to these circles.
The problem for these factions for which the Times speaks is not that
Russia is using mercenaries, but that its activities are cutting across crucial
geo-strategic interests of American imperialism in Syria and the broader Middle
The newspaper’s hypocritical and hollow attempts to generate
outrage over a military contract that is dwarfed by any number of similar deals
struck by US war firms is part of an attempt to shift the Trump administration
toward a more aggressive policy toward Moscow and, more decisively, counter the
immense popular hostility in the US toward escalating a military confrontation
with the world’s second-largest nuclear power.
SENATOR DIANNE FEINSTEIN, HUBBY LOOTER
RICHARD BLUM AND LAP B ITCH, BARBARA “BRIBES” BOXER…. Along with Nancy Pelosi,
four of the most corrupt and self-serving plunderers of America… These Cretans
redefine the term CRONY CAPITALIST PIGS!
FOR YEARS THEY HAVE SUCKED THE BLOOD OUT OF A DYING
“Our entire crony capitalist system, Democrat and Republican alike,
has become a kleptocracy approaching par with third-world hell-holes.
This is the way a great country is raided by its elite.” ---- Karen
McQuillan THEAMERICAN THINKER.com
“Our entire crony capitalist system, Democrat and Republican alike, has become a kleptocracy approaching par with third-world hell-holes. This is the way a great country is raided by its elite.” ---- Karen McQuillan THEAMERICAN THINKER.com
Senator Feinstein's War Profiteering
Senator Feinstein's War Profiteering
by Joshua Frank
It happens all the time. If the antiwar movement takes on the Democrats for their bitter shortcomings, a few liberals are bound to criticize us for not hounding Bush instead. It doesn't even have to be an election year to get the progressives fired up. They just don't seem to get it. "How can you attack the Democrats when we have such a bulletproof administration ruling the roost in Washington?" somebody recently e-mailed me. "Don't you have something better to do than write this trash?!"
Well, not really. It's too cold in upstate New York right now to do anything other than fume over the liberal villains in Washington. "Why do I write about the putrid Democratic Party?" I responded, "I'll tell you, there's a reason this Republican administration is so damn bulletproof – nobody from the opposition party is taking aim and pulling the trigger."
And that's why the Dems are just as culpable in all that has transpired since Bush took office in 2000. They aren't just a part of the problem – the Democrats are the problem.
I mean, who is really all that surprised Bush and his boys wanted to conquer the Middle East? Not me. That's just what unreasonable neocons do: they stomp out the little guy, kill off the weak, and suffocate the voiceless. They only care about the girth of their wallets and the number of scalps they can tack above their mantles.
The Democrats aren't just letting the Republicans get away with murder, however: some of them are also reaping the benefits of the Bush wars. We constantly hear about Dick Cheney's ties to Halliburton and how his ex-company is making bundles off U.S. contracts in Iraq. But what we don't hear about is how Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein and her husband are also making tons of money off the "war on terror."
The wishy-washy senator now claims Bush misled her prior to the invasion of Iraq. I don't think she's being honest with us, though. There may have been other reasons she helped sell Bush's lies. According to the Center for Public Integrity, Feinstein's husband Richard Blum has racked in millions of dollars from Perini, a civil infrastructure construction company, of which the billionaire investor wields a 75 percent voting share.
In April 2003, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers gave $500 million to Perini to provide services for Iraq's Central Command. A month earlier in March 2003, Perini was awarded $25 million to design and construct a facility to support the Afghan National Army near Kabul. And in March 2004, Perini was awarded a hefty contract worth up to $500 million for "electrical power distribution and transmission" in southern Iraq.
Feinstein, who sits on the Senate
Appropriations Committee as well as the
Select Committee on Intelligence, is reaping
the benefits of her husband's investments.
The Democratic royal family recently
purchased a $16.5 million mansion in the
flush Pacific Heights neighborhood of San
Francisco. It's a disgusting display of war
profiteering, and just like Cheney, the leading
Democrat should be called out for her
And that's exactly why the Bush
administration is so darn bulletproof.
The Democratic leadership in
Washington is just as crooked and just
|This article needs additional citations for verification. (November 2009) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)|