You are here

Impeach Obama to avoid rush to War before Trump inauguration

Article below has been republished, 15 Nov 2016, on the (real) Syrian Free Press.

Francis A. Boyle, Gadaffi's international lawyer and author of Destroying Libya and World Order, today (11 November 2016) said, on Pravda TV, that Obama can be existentially dangerous between now and inauguration day. He reminded people that Bush Sr invaded Somalia right after he lost to Bill Clinton. And the US/NATO announced on Monday that they were putting 300,000 troops on high alert. Boyle urges people to move forward with an impeachment campaign against Obama during the lame duck session of Congress because we do not want a war with Russia over Ukraine or Syria."

This morning, hardly taking breath over the US election, again there is much talk in the MSM about the situation in Aleppo, while the situation in Mosul has been quite ignored, although the fight by various forces including US-NATO against ISIS there and refugee diaspora all continue.

There were multiple takes from Mr. Jan Egeland, Special Advisor to the United Nations Special Envoy for Syria's statement about the urgency of getting aid into East Aleppo, all incorporating various aspects of the whole false narrative, about who is there, and about the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) and Russian efforts to liberate the whole city.

Aspects of the false narrative were also presented by the Australian ABC’s M/E correspondent Matt Brown, who seems to be a single-minded supporter of the opposition forces and a purveyor of misinformation on their behalf. In this report his source was ‘Abu Laith’ – ‘Aleppo resident and member of the White Helmets’. Brown discussed the presence of the Russian aircraft carrier with Abu Laith, who threw off the threat and vowed to continue to support the people. See

Egeland, who is also completely partial, claimed in his report that ‘some families had not received food rations for three weeks, and prices had risen sharply', and that ‘neither side wants to see a quarter of a million people starve’. Brown said the UN had done a survey of people in East Aleppo and found that 40% of them wanted to leave, but in portraying the recent efforts of the Syrian and Russian governments to get civilians out of the terrorist-occupied East, said that these had been unsuccessful because the ‘rebels oppose people leaving the city’. However he fails to say that the 'rebels' shoot people who try to leave.

The fact is that the UN should have cooperated with the Russian and Syrian government when there was the ceasefire to get people out. They should have put pressure on the rebel leaders, and the US-NATO by telling the media the real situation, which is that East Aleppo is being held under seige, not by the Syrian Gov, but by the 'rebels' who are using the East Aleppan citizens as human shields.

In another short news bulletin this morning, with different extracts from Egeland, it was suggested that the people could starve or bleed to death, [if we don’t act].

Emphasising the pervasive misinformation and disinformation coming from our corrupted media, the ABC also interviewed Australia’s defence minister, Maurice Payne, this morning. This might seem unsurprising if one didn’t know that neither the ABC nor the Australian government has shown the slightest interest in discussing Australia’s involvement, either in Iraq or Syria, for the last few months since the ‘Aleppo crisis’ has been dominating the narrative.

Even when Australian forces were allegedly involved in the US coalition attack on the SAA in Deir al Zour that ended the ‘ceasefire’, there was minimal discussion following the shockingly cursory apology.

That Australia was ‘involved’ in that strike, that supported IS terrorists directly, (though it has been suggested the fighter jets were only US ones, and that we were asked to share the responsibility), indicates that Australia’s strategic role as a primary partner in the US’ war on Syria is highly significant, as it is also highly significant in our region in the defence, not of Australian interests, but of US imperial interests against China.

This is what Australia’s defence minister, Marise Payne had to say this morning about our role in the ‘fight against ISIS’:

MICHAEL BRISSENDEN: "In the Middle East in particular, Trump's been positive about Russia's role in Syria. We certainly haven't been positive in that way. He's talked also about a more robust military response to ISIS. Do you expect a change?"

MARISE PAYNE: "Well, we will always deal with those discussions as they're presented to us. Overwhelmingly, our response in Iraq and in Syria is dictated by conditions on the ground: by the operational environment in which we find ourselves.

As you know, we've trained almost 14,000 soldiers who are engaging in the fight against Daesh in the Iraqi defence force. We have a special operations task group which is working side-by-side, not just with the Iraqis but members of the international coalition, which is led by the United States. We have changed, even in the last year, our contribution to both of those activities. We have worked as the operational environment has changed as well..."

Most significant here is that the ‘Iraqis’ – meaning Baghdad – are not on the same side as the US coalition if it includes Turkey. That is something that needs clarifying right now. Whether the ABC has any idea about the importance of this issue remains unknown. They don’t ask, and they aren’t told.


Sophie Shevardnadze interviews Stephen Cohen about the likely consequences of Donald Trump's election victory - 29 minute video interview.

Sophie Shevardnadze is the granddaughter of the late Eduard Shevardnadze (1926-2014) who was foreign minister of the former Soviet Union from 1985 until 1991. She graduated with a cinema degree from Boston University in 2001 and studied in the masters program in TV journalism at New York University in 2005 and now lives in Russia and is the presenter of the bi-weekly program SophieCo.

Stephen Cohen is professor emeritus at the Princeton University and editor of The Nation magazine.

The comment above was posted to discussion about Donald Trump's election on I could find little in that discussion that acknowledge the terrible menace that a victory by Hillary Clinton would have posed to humanity. Nearly all of the 'discussion' there is a rehash of some the same smears against Donald Trump used by the mainstream and 'alternative' newsmedia, including, paradoxically,

Sophie Shevardnadze is one of only a small handful of journalists on RT, who have shown any objectivity or balance in the reporting of the recently concluded United States' election campaign. Most showed little more little more objectivity than the mainstream newsmedia. Had more American voters listened to likes of Thom Hartman and Ed Schultz and not to Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton would now be President-elect.

The following comment was also posted to the abovementioned discussion. (In that post I misspelt 'Shevardnadze' as 'Shervardnadze'.)


Could I suggest that you read from sources other than the mainstream newsmedia about Donald Trump - the same msm that propagandises for war against Syria and propagandised for the invasion of Libya in 2011, gaves us Iraqi "weapons of mass destruction" in 2003, Kuwaiti "incubator babies" in 1990, the Red Chinese invasion of Vietnam in 1965, the Gulf of Tonkin incident in 1964, the magic bullet, etc., etc.?

Perhaps you could start by watching that video linked to above. Should that video not persuade you, then perhaps you could explain to the rest of us why you think Stephen Cohen and Sophie Shevardnadze are wrong.

Ikonoclast wrote:

... Trump ... IS part of the elite. Like the rest of the elite, he preys on, exploits and oppresses the poor and the weak. ...

Had you watched the different debates and other material from Donald Trump, you would know that he has explicitly repudiated the crowd of billionaires that he was previously amongst.

In any case, even if it were possible to believe all the worst smears against Donald Trump, he would still only be fractionally as terrible as a woman who has helped cause the deaths of hundreds of thousands in the former Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Yemen and Syria, taken bribes from the misogynist rulers of Saudi Arabia and laughed when she heard news of the cruel murder of Muammar Gaddafi.

WHY don't people read outside the mainstream media? Are they totally incurious? It seems to me that the mass media believer is the same person who feeds their dogs commercial dog-pellets instead of meat because some vet who sells the stuff told them to. Simply conditioned to identify and believe any authority that ticks certain boxes, such as mouthing key-words like LGBT etc and wears peer supported pant-suits and 'speaks well'. Doesn't matter what that person actually does; just how they sound and look. Consider, if Jon Faine started broadcasting in a voice like Pauline Hanson's, he would last about ten seconds.

It's all about plausibility, but one might just as well sound plausible about Sauvignon Blanc as about the mainstream political mantras.

Well, I may as well link to my climate change comment on The Conversation today, if we are linking to John Quiggin.

It's comment no. 45, I think, but google Sheila Newman and you may find it.

"If Trump causes the US to pull out of its wars in the Middle East this will reduce a major contribution to climate change as well as the threat of nuclear war, which Mrs Clinton’s autobiography and recent speeches show she was hell-bent on. All the rhetoric from the Obama and Clinton administrations, and from Australian governments promising action on climate change, is just that. Rhetoric. Not only does our government uncritically support illegal interventions in the Middle East that are devastating that region, but it also supports massive land-clearing for population expansion (through planned invited economic mass immigration). The problem with the US and Australian ‘Left’ is that they are faux-left, who by pretending they are helping the environment but are actually gung-ho warmongers and weapons exporters. See “Left treated Hillary’s war plan against Russia as a non-issue” at"