The Gloves Come Off: Vladimir Putin Exposes G20′s Financial Ties to ISIS

At G20 summit, Putin calls out member states for supporting terrorism

putinmain-400x209In a classic Putin move, the Russian President presented evidence of G20 member states providing financial support to ISIS…during the G20 summit in Antalya. Speaking with reporters after the summit, Putin revealed:

I provided examples related to our data on the financing of Islamic State units by natural persons in various countries. The financing comes from 40 countries, as we established, including some G20 members

Putin also provided satellite images of the Islamic State’s lucrative oil smuggling operations:

I’ve demonstrated the pictures from space to our colleagues, which clearly show the true size of the illegal trade of oil and petroleum products market. Car convoys stretching for dozens of kilometers, going beyond the horizon when seen from a height of four-five thousand meters

Interestingly, immediately after the summit, the U.S. announced that its warplanes had begun to bomb ISIS truck convoys  used to “smuggle the crude oil it has been producing in Syria”. What a strange coincidence. It’s as if the U.S. knew exactly where these convoys were, but didn’t feel compelled to destroy them until now. The world is full of mysteries!

But the real story here is that Putin actually got up in front of the world’s largest economic powers and told them, right to their faces, that Russia knows exactly what they are doing.

New Book Rips Hillary Clinton – Stephen Lendman

hillary-clinton-my-turn-book-e1446511093415

 

Make no mistake. A Clinton presidency would be disastrous – the worst of all possible deplorable choices, none worthy of any public office, all aspirants beholden to wealth, power and privilege exclusively.

 

Politically, Doug Henwood would easily be defined as a true progressive, which makes his observations about Hillary all the more compelling.  Most progressives that support Hillary have no concept that she’s a warmonger and spear carrier for global empire and special interests.  But then, one need only watch Marc Dice’s man-on-the-street interviews (e.g., click here) to get a sense for how little thinking goes on in the minds of some Hillary supporters. — Eric Dubin, Managing Editor, The News Doctors

TND Guest Contributor:  Stephen Lendman

Make no mistake. A Clinton presidency would be disastrous – the worst of all possible deplorable choices, none worthy of any public office, all aspirants beholden to wealth, power and privilege exclusively.

Don’t let their duplicitous rhetoric fool you. They’re all cut out of the same cloth. Otherwise, they wouldn’t get public attention. Populist Green Party aspirant Jill Stein gets none.

A Clinton presidency would be nightmarish for the vast majority of Americans and world peace. It’ll combine the worst of George Bush and Obama, an agenda of endless wars of aggression, maybe targeting Russia, China, and/or Iran, corporate favoritism, destroying social justice, and full-blown tyranny against resisters.

Doug Henwood is editor and publisher of the Left Business Observer. It covers “economics and politics in the broadest sense,” discussing what everyone needs to know, suppressed in mainstream reporting.

In November 2014, his Harpers article headlined “Stop Hillary! Vote no to a Clinton dynasty.” It bears repeating. A second Clinton presidency is the worst of all deplorable choices.

Her qualifications “boil down to this,” says Henwood. “She has experience, she’s a woman, and it’s her turn. It’s hard to find any substantive political argument in her favor.”

As first lady, she pushed husband Bill to bomb Belgrade in 1999. The rape of Yugoslavia raged throughout the 1990s, culminating with 78 days of lawless US-led NATO aggression from March 24 – June 10, 1999.

She encouraged her husband to end welfare for needy households. Vital Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) ended. The so-called Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation (PRWORA) followed, changing eligibility rules.

Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) set a five-year time limit – leaving millions of needy households (many with single mothers) on their own when aid was most needed.

As New York senator and Secretary of State, she “bec(ame) increasingly hawkish on foreign policy,” Henwood explained.

“What Hillary will deliver (as president) is more of the same. And that shouldn’t surprise us…American politics has an amazing stability and continuity about it.”

No matter who’s elected president, business as usual always continues, hardening, not softening deplorably during Bill Clinton’s presidency, worse than ever post-9/11 under Bush II and Obama – certain to be worse than ever no matter who gets the top job next November, especially if it’s Hillary, a neocon, anti-populist war goddess.

Her self-proclaimed progressivism is pure fantasy. Her record as first lady and in public office exposes her real agenda, warranting condemnation, not praise.

She “has a long history of being economical with the truth,” said Henwood. As New York senator, “she voted for the Iraq war, and continued to defend it long after others had thrown in the towel.”

She echoed the Big Lies about Saddam’s nonexistent WMDs and ties to Al Qaeda. She cozied up to right-wing Republicans to ward off criticism. As Secretary of State, she was “less of a diplomat and more of a hawk,” Henwood explained.

She backed escalated war on Afghanistan, pushed for continued US military presence in Iraq, helped orchestrate lawless aggression on Libya, and urged Obama to bomb Syria without required Security Council authorization.

She was involved in developing “pivot to Asia” strategy. “Since leaving the State Department, (she) devoted herself to…Clinton, Inc…(a) fund-raising, favor-dispensing machine” together with husband Bill, said Henwood.

Their style is self-promotion, including “huge book advances and fat speaking fees… And with an eye to the presidency, (she) kept up her line of neocon patter, while carefully separating herself from Obama.”

She deplorably supports Netanyahu’s high crimes – from naked aggression on Gaza to current war throughout the Territories. Palestinian bloodshed and horrific suffering are of no consequence. Israeli imperial interests alone matter.

Henwood concluded his lengthy article, saying “Eight years of Hill? Four, even? To borrow her anti-McCain jab from the 2008 Democratic convention: No way, no how!”

His new book titled “My Turn: Hillary Clinton Targets the Presidency” covers in greater detail what his article discussed. The cover shows her hawkish image, pointing a gun with her arm outstretched.

Her agenda is pure evil, an anti-populist neocon war goddess corporate shill, pretending otherwise.

With Biden out as a potential candidate, she looks like a shoe-in Democrat nominee, despite all the exposed baggage about her. WW III looks increasingly likely with her in the White House.

###

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.

Click here for information on his new book (editor and contributor) titled “Flashpoint in Ukraine: US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.”  Mr. Lendman’s articles can be read at is blog:  sjlendman.blogspot.com.  He also hosts the “Progressive Radio News Hour” on the Progressive Radio Network.  His show featuring cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests and airs three times weekly: live on Sundays at 1PM Central time plus two prerecorded archived programs.

Stephen Lendman was born in 1934 in Boston, MA. In 1956, he received a BA from Harvard University. Two years of US Army service followed, then an MBA from the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania in 1960. After working seven years as a marketing research analyst, he joined the Lendman Group family business in 1967. He remained there until retiring at year end 1999. Writing on major world and national issues began in summer 2005. In early 2007, radio hosting followed. Lendman now hosts the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network three times weekly. Distinguished guests are featured. Listen live or achived. Major world and national issues are discussed. Lendman is a 2008 Project Censored winner and 2011 Mexican Journalists Club international journalism award recipient.  His other books include, “Banker Occupation:  Waging Financial War On Humanity,” “How Wall Street Fleeces America:  Privatized Banking, Government Collusion and Class War,” and “The Iraq Quagmire: The Price of Imperial Arrogance.

 

WHO ARE OUR READERS? WHERE IN OUR PLANETS ARE THEY?

National Geographic Weirdest Planets – HD Documentary

WE HOPE YOU ENJOY!

 

Country
United States FlagUnited States
United Kingdom FlagUnited Kingdom
France FlagFrance
Germany FlagGermany
Australia FlagAustralia
Canada FlagCanada
Austria FlagAustria
Brazil FlagBrazil
Italy FlagItaly
New Zealand FlagNew Zealand
Netherlands FlagNetherlands
Spain FlagSpain
Argentina FlagArgentina
Norway FlagNorway
Belgium FlagBelgium
Sweden FlagSweden
Switzerland FlagSwitzerland
    eu_flag_small  European Union
Mexico FlagMexico
Japan FlagJapan
South Africa FlagSouth Africa
India FlagIndia
Ireland FlagIreland
Poland FlagPoland
Russia FlagRussia
Turkey FlagTurkey
Indonesia FlagIndonesia
Greece FlagGreece
Finland FlagFinland
Denmark FlagDenmark
Thailand FlagThailand
Croatia FlagCroatia
Czech Republic FlagCzech Republic
Hungary FlagHungary
Ukraine FlagUkraine
Chile FlagChile
Serbia FlagSerbia
Pakistan FlagPakistan
Hong Kong SAR China FlagHong Kong SAR China
Taiwan FlagTaiwan
Bulgaria FlagBulgaria
Cambodia FlagCambodia
Saudi Arabia FlagSaudi Arabia
Vietnam FlagVietnam
Peru FlagPeru
St. Vincent & Grenadines FlagSt. Vincent & Grenadines
South Korea FlagSouth Korea
Singapore FlagSingapore
Slovenia FlagSlovenia
Colombia FlagColombia
Bosnia & Herzegovina FlagBosnia & Herzegovina
Malaysia FlagMalaysia
United Arab Emirates FlagUnited Arab Emirates
Bahrain FlagBahrain
Venezuela FlagVenezuela
Slovakia FlagSlovakia
Philippines FlagPhilippines
Luxembourg FlagLuxembourg
Palestinian Territories FlagPalestinian Territories
Romania FlagRomania
Morocco FlagMorocco
Lithuania FlagLithuania
Antigua & Barbuda FlagAntigua & Barbuda
China FlagChina
Nigeria FlagNigeria
Latvia FlagLatvia
Iran FlagIran
Costa Rica FlagCosta Rica
Lebanon FlagLebanon
Qatar FlagQatar
Tunisia FlagTunisia
Mongolia FlagMongolia
Guadeloupe FlagGuadeloupe
Réunion FlagRéunion
Cyprus FlagCyprus
Estonia FlagEstonia
Portugal FlagPortugal
Andorra FlagAndorra
Nepal FlagNepal
Uruguay FlagUruguay

A Clinton Story Fraught With Inaccuracies: How It Happened and What’s Next?

hillary-clinton-winking-AP-640x480

Make no mistake. A Clinton presidency would be disastrous – the worst of all possible deplorable choices, none worthy of any public office, all aspirants beholden to wealth, power and privilege exclusively.

 

By Margaret Sullivan – Public Editor’s Journal

July 27, 2015 10:00 am

Updated: July 28, 2015 | The story certainly seemed like a blockbuster: A criminal investigation of Hillary Rodham Clinton by the Justice Department was being sought by two federal inspectors general over her email practices while secretary of state.

It’s hard to imagine a much more significant political story at this moment, given that she is the leading candidate for the Democratic nomination for president.

The story a Times exclusive — appeared high on the home page and the mobile app late Thursday and on Friday and then was displayed with a three-column headline on the front page in Friday’s paper. The online headline read “Criminal Inquiry Sought in Hillary Clinton’s Use of Email,” very similar to the one in print.

But aspects of it began to unravel soon after it first went online. The first major change was this: It wasn’t really Mrs. Clinton directly who was the focus of the request for an investigation. It was more general: whether government information was handled improperly in connection with her use of a personal email account.

Much later, The Times backed off the startling characterization of a “criminal inquiry,” instead calling it something far tamer sounding: it was a “security” referral.

From Thursday night to Sunday morning – when a final correction appeared in print – the inaccuracies and changes in the story were handled as they came along, with little explanation to readers, other than routine corrections. The first change I mentioned above was written into the story for hours without a correction or any notice of the change, which was substantive.

And the evolving story, which began to include a new development, simply replaced the older version. That development was that several instances of classified information had been found in Mrs. Clinton’s personal email – although, in fairness, it’s doubtful whether the information was marked as classified when she sent or received those emails. Eventually, a number of corrections were appended to the online story, before appearing in print in the usual way – in small notices on Page A2.

But you can’t put stories like this back in the bottle – they ripple through the entire news system.

So it was, to put it mildly, a mess. As a result, I’ve been spending the last couple of days asking how this could happen and how something similar can be prevented in the future. I’ve spoken to the executive editor, Dean Baquet; to a top-ranking editor involved with the story, Matt Purdy; and to the two reporters, Matt Apuzzo and Michael S. Schmidt.

Meanwhile, I heard from readers, like Maria Cranor who wanted clarification and explanation on The Times’s “recent, and mystifying, coverage of the HRC emails. It appears that your reporters relied on leaks from the Gowdy committee to suggest that Clinton was involved in some kind of criminal malfeasance around the emails. The subsequent walk backs have not been effective, or encouraging. Please help us retain our wavering confidence in the Times’ political coverage!” (Her reference is to the Republican congressman, Trey Gowdy.)

Another reader, Paul Kingsley, demanded a refund for his Friday paper. “We all deserve one,” he wrote to me. And, complaining about the lack of transparency and the errors, he added:

1) please repost the original reporting;
2) provide an explanation as to how it made it to press and what was wrong.
3) what are you going to do to prevent such inaccurate bias in the future?
4) are you going to minimize using unnamed sources?

The story developed quickly on Thursday afternoon and evening, after tips from various sources, including on Capitol Hill. The reporters had what Mr. Purdy described as “multiple, reliable, highly placed sources,” including some “in law enforcement.” I think we can safely read that as the Justice Department.

The sources said not only was there indeed a referral but also that it was directed at Mrs. Clinton herself, and that it was a criminal referral. And that’s how The Times wrote it initially.

“We got it wrong because our very good sources had it wrong,” Mr. Purdy told me. “That’s an explanation, not an excuse. We have an obligation to get facts right and we work very hard to do that.”

By Friday afternoon, the Justice Department issued a terse statement, saying that there had been a referral related to the potential compromise of classified information, stating clearly that it was not a criminal referral. Mr. Purdy says he remains puzzled about why the initial inaccurate information was confirmed so clearly. (Update: Other news outlets also got confirmation of the criminal referral as they followed The Times’s story. They did not report, as an earlier version of this post suggested, that she herself was the target of the referral.)

There are at least two major journalistic problems here, in my view. Competitive pressure and the desire for a scoop led to too much speed and not enough caution. Mr. Purdy told me that the reporters, whom he described as excellent and experienced, were “sent back again and again” to seek confirmation of the key elements; but while no one would discuss the specifics of who the sources were, my sense is that final confirmation came from the same person more than once.

The reporters and editors were not able to see the referral itself, Mr. Purdy said, and that’s the norm in such cases; anything else would be highly unusual, he said. So they were relying on their sources’ interpretation of it. All at The Times emphasized that the core of the initial story – the request for an investigation – is true, and that it was major news, as was the later development.

Hindsight’s easy, but I’ll take a stab at it anyway. Here’s my take:

First, consider the elements. When you add together the lack of accountability that comes with anonymous sources, along with no ability to examine the referral itself, and then mix in the ever-faster pace of competitive reporting for the web, you’ve got a mistake waiting to happen. Or, in this case, several mistakes.

Reporting a less sensational version of the story, with a headline that did not include the word “criminal,” and continuing to develop it the next day would have been a wise play. Better yet: Waiting until the next day to publish anything at all.

Losing the story to another news outlet would have been a far, far better outcome than publishing an unfair story and damaging The Times’s reputation for accuracy.

What’s more, when mistakes inevitably happen, The Times needs to be much more transparent with readers about what is going on. Just revising the story, and figuring out the corrections later, doesn’t cut it.

Mr. Baquet, who is a former Times Washington bureau chief, told me Sunday by phone that he faults himself on this score, and he would do it differently now.

“We should have explained to our readers right away what happened here, as soon as we knew it,” he said. That could have been in an editor’s note or in a story, or in some other form, he said.

“The readers of The New York Times got whipsawed,” by all the conflicting reports and criticism, he said.

He agreed, as Mr. Purdy did, that special care has to come with the use of anonymous sources, but he believes that the errors here “may have been unavoidable.” And Mr. Purdy said that he thought The Times probably took too long to append a correction in the first instance.

But, Mr. Baquet said, he does not fault the reporters or editors directly involved.

“You had the government confirming that it was a criminal referral,” Mr. Baquet said. “I’m not sure what they could have done differently on that.”

None of this should be used to deny the importance of The Times’s reporting on the subject of Mrs. Clinton’s email practices at the State Department, a story Mr. Schmidt broke in March. Although her partisans want the focus shifted to these errors, the fact remains that her secret email system hamstrung possible inquiries into her conduct while secretary of state both by the news media and the public under the Freedom of Information Act and by Congress. And her awarding to herself the first cull of those emails will make suspicion about what they contained a permanent part of the current campaign.

Nevertheless, the most recent story is both a messy and a regrettable chapter. It brings up important issues that demand to be thought about and discussed internally with an eye to prevention in the future.

Mr. Baquet and Mr. Purdy said that would happen, especially on the issue of transparency to readers. In my view, that discussion must also include the rampant use of anonymous sources, and the need to slow down and employ what might seem an excess of caution before publishing a political blockbuster based on shadowy sources.

I’ll summarize my prescription in four words: Less speed. More transparency.

After all, readers come to The Times not for a scoop, though those can be great, but for fair, authoritative and accurate information. And when things do go wrong, readers deserve a thorough, immediate explanation from the top. None of that happened here.

(Update: An editors’ note, explaining the errors and stating that corrections should have been handled differently, was published late Monday, and appeared in Tuesday’s paper on page A2.)

Why is America Protecting the Islamic State (ISIS)? “Why Isn’t the US Bombing ISIS’ Oil Fields”: By Turkish Journalist

 

 

The US-led coalition’s reluctance to bomb Islamic State-controlled oil deposits in Syria has raised eyebrows, according to prominent Turkish journalist Alptekin Dursunoglu.

oilfieldsIn an interview with Sputnik, eminent Turkish journalist Alptekin Dursunoglu voiced surprise about the US-led coalition’s reluctance to bomb Islamic State-controlled oil deposits in Syria, which he said are one of the key sources of income for the jihadist group.
 
He referred to the Islamic State’s smuggling of oil to Turkey via an illegal pipeline, the existence of which has yet to be confirmed, according to Dursunoglu.At the same time, he drew attention to the fact that the US-led air campaign never targeted the ISIL-controlled oil fields in Syria.”This fact really makes [me] wonder, given that one of the steps of Obama’s plan to fight ISIL was the destruction of sources of the Islamic State’s income,” Dursunoglu said.

To find the answer, it is necessary to discern who ordered the US and its allies not to bomb ISIL’s oil fields, he said, referring to previous activities by local officials nominated by the US.

Commenting on thousands of oil tanks supplied by ISIL, Dursunoglu wondered why American drones failed to track the convoy of such a big scale.

He also said that the delivery of oil is not the only source of income for the Islamic State, which he recalled was part of al-Qaeda in 2012.

“This unified organization deliberately avoided being named al-Qaeda. This organization got the considerable share of money that was delivered by the Gulf States and Turkey under the pretext of helping the Syrian opposition,” Dursunoglu said.

He quoted local humanitarian workers as saying in 2012 that the money was sent in “bags, suitcases and sacks.”

Dursunoglu added that apart from illegal oil trading and racketeering, the smuggling of antiques and historical artifacts, as well as human trafficking and the organ trade add significantly to the Islamic State’s coffers