The CIA takeover of the Democratic Party

Luis Jackson
Luis Jackson

wsws.org/en/articles/2018/03/13/pers-m13.html

13 March 2018

In a three-part series[ wsws.org/en/articles/2018/03/07/dems-m07.html ] published last week, the World Socialist Web Site documented an unprecedented influx of intelligence and military operatives into the Democratic Party. More than 50 such military-intelligence candidates are seeking the Democratic nomination in the 102 districts identified by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee as its targets for 2018. These include both vacant seats and those with Republican incumbents considered vulnerable in the event of a significant swing to the Democrats.

If on November 6 the Democratic Party makes the net gain of 24 seats needed to win control of the House of Representatives, former CIA agents, military commanders, and State Department officials will provide the margin of victory and hold the balance of power in Congress. The presence of so many representatives of the military-intelligence apparatus in the legislature is a situation without precedent in the history of the United States.

Since its establishment in 1947—under the administration of Democratic President Harry Truman—the CIA has been legally barred from carrying out within the United States the activities which were its mission overseas: spying, infiltration, political provocation, assassination. These prohibitions were given official lip service but ignored in practice.

In the wake of the Watergate crisis and the forced resignation of President Richard Nixon, reporter Seymour Hersh published the first devastating exposure of the CIA domestic spying, in an investigative report for the New York Times on December 22, 1974. This report triggered the establishment of the Rockefeller Commission, a White House effort at damage control, and Senate and House select committees, named after their chairmen, Senator Frank Church and Representative Otis Pike, which conducted hearings and made serious attempts to investigate and expose the crimes of the CIA, FBI and National Security Agency.

The Church Committee in particular featured the exposure of CIA assassination plots against foreign leaders like Fidel Castro, Patrice Lumumba in the Congo, General Rene Schneider in Chile, and many others. More horrors were uncovered: MK-Ultra, in which the CIA secretly subjected unwitting victims to experimentation with drugs like LSD; Operation Mockingbird, in which the CIA recruited journalists to plant stories and smear opponents; Operation Chaos, an effort to spy on the antiwar movement and sow disruption; Operation Shamrock, under which the telecommunications companies shared traffic with the NSA for more than a quarter century.

The Church and Pike committee exposures, despite their limitations, had a devastating political effect. The CIA and its allied intelligence organizations in the Pentagon and NSA became political lepers, reviled as the enemies of democratic rights. The CIA in particular was widely viewed as “Murder Incorporated.”

In that period, it would have been unthinkable either for dozens of “former” military-intelligence operatives to participate openly in electoral politics, or for them to be welcomed and even recruited by the two corporate-controlled parties. The Democrats and Republicans sought to distance themselves, at least for public relations purposes, from the spy apparatus, while the CIA publicly declared that it would no longer recruit or pay American journalists to publish material originating in Langley, Virginia. Even in the 1980s, the Iran-Contra scandal involved the exposure of the illegal operations of the Reagan administration’s CIA director, William Casey.

Attached: san-niku.jpg (220.8 KB, 666x1000)

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=Jj7hvKQ6Uhc
mobile.nytimes.com/2017/08/26/world/europe/greece-china-piraeus-alexis-tsipras.html?referer=https://www.google.com.tw/
turkishpolicy.com/article/870/one-belt-one-road-initiative-perks-and-challenges-for-turkey
timeslive.co.za/news/africa/2018-03-21-china-rejects-mnangagwas-looters-list/
forbes.com/sites/wadeshepard/2018/03/22/the-hidden-economic-rationale-of-china-europe-rail/#68a4d62b40d1

Ian Morgan
Ian Morgan

How times have changed. One of the main functions of the “war on terror,” launched in the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, has been to rehabilitate the US spy apparatus and give it a public relations makeover as the supposed protector of the American people against terrorism.

This meant disregarding the well-known connections between Osama bin Laden and other Al Qaeda leaders and the CIA, which recruited them for the anti-Soviet guerrilla war in Afghanistan, waged from 1979 to 1989, as well as the still unexplained role of the US intelligence agencies in facilitating the 9/11 attacks themselves.

The last 15 years have seen a massive expansion of the CIA and other intelligence agencies, backed by an avalanche of media propaganda, with endless television programs and movies glorifying American spies and assassins (24, Homeland, Zero Dark Thirty, etc.)

The American media has been directly recruited to this effort. Judith Miller of the New York Times, with her reports on “weapons of mass destruction” in Iraq, is only the most notorious of the stable of “plugged-in” intelligence-connected journalists at the Times, the Washington Post, and the major television networks. More recently, the Times has installed as its editorial page editor James Bennet, brother of a Democratic senator and son of the former administrator of the Agency for International Development, which has been accused of working as a front for the operations of the Central Intelligence Agency.

The media campaign alleging Russian intervention in the 2016 US elections has been based entirely on handouts from the CIA, NSA and FBI, transmitted by reporters who are either unwitting stooges or conscious agents of the military-intelligence apparatus. This has been accompanied by the recruitment of a cadre of top CIA and military officials to serve as highly paid “experts” and “analysts” for the television networks.

In centering its opposition to Trump on the bogus allegations of Russian interference, while essentially ignoring Trump’s attacks on immigrants and democratic rights, his alignment with ultra-right and white supremacist groups, his attacks on social programs like Medicaid and food stamps, and his militarism and threats of nuclear war, the Democratic Party has embraced the agenda of the military-intelligence apparatus and sought to become its main political voice.

This process was well under way in the administration of Barack Obama, which endorsed and expanded the various operations of the intelligence agencies abroad and within the United States. Obama’s endorsed successor, Hillary Clinton, ran openly as the chosen candidate of the Pentagon and CIA, touting her toughness as a future commander-in-chief and pledging to escalate the confrontation with Russia, both in Syria and Ukraine.

Bentley Scott
Bentley Scott

The CIA has spearheaded the anti-Russia campaign against Trump in large part because of resentment over the disruption of its operations in Syria, and it has successfully used the campaign to force a shift in the policy of the Trump administration on that score. A chorus of media backers—Nicholas Kristof and Roger Cohen of the New York Times, the entire editorial board of the Washington Post, most of the television networks—are part of the campaign to pollute public opinion and whip up support on alleged “human rights” grounds for an expansion of the US war in Syria.

The 2018 election campaign marks a new stage: for the first time, military-intelligence operatives are moving in large numbers to take over a political party and seize a major role in Congress. The dozens of CIA and military veterans running in the Democratic Party primaries are “former” agents of the military-intelligence apparatus. This “retired” status is, however, purely nominal. Joining the CIA or the Army Rangers or the Navy SEALs is like joining the Mafia: no one ever actually leaves; they just move on to new assignments.

The CIA operation in 2018 is unlike its overseas activities in one major respect: it is not covert. On the contrary, the military-intelligence operatives running in the Democratic primaries boast of their careers as spies and special ops warriors. Those with combat experience invariably feature photographs of themselves in desert fatigues or other uniforms on their websites. And they are welcomed and given preferred positions, with Democratic Party officials frequently clearing the field for their candidacies.

The working class is confronted with an extraordinary political situation. On the one hand, the Republican Trump administration has more military generals in top posts than any other previous government. On the other hand, the Democratic Party has opened its doors to a "friendly takeover" by the intelligence agencies.

The incredible power of the military-intelligence agencies over the entire government is an expression of the breakdown of American democracy. The central cause of this breakdown is the extreme concentration of wealth in the hands of a tiny elite, whose interests the state apparatus and its “bodies of armed men” serve. Confronted by an angry and hostile working class, the ruling class is resorting to ever more overt forms of authoritarian rule.

Millions of working people want to fight the Trump administration and its ultra-right policies. But it is impossible to carry out this fight through the “axis of evil” that connects the Democratic Party, the bulk of the corporate media, and the CIA. The influx of military-intelligence candidates puts paid to the longstanding myth, peddled by the trade unions and pseudo-left groups, that the Democrats represent a “lesser evil.” On the contrary, working people must confront the fact that within the framework of the corporate-controlled two-party system, they face two equally reactionary evils.

Patrick Martin

Aaron Roberts
Aaron Roberts

The CIA in particular was widely viewed as “Murder Incorporated.”
youtube.com/watch?v=Jj7hvKQ6Uhc

Attached: gemsweat.jpg (26.32 KB, 370x297)

Luke Flores
Luke Flores

Murder Inc. was a jewish mob group from the 20'S to the 40's.

Attached: Louis-Buchalter-sentencing.jpg (524.55 KB, 2817x2265)

Nicholas Adams
Nicholas Adams

Run from a candyshop. #candygate #pizzagate

Attached: comet-podesta.jpg (285.77 KB, 620x412)

Noah Richardson
Noah Richardson

The CIA has spearheaded the anti-Russia campaign against Trump in large part because of resentment over the disruption of its operations in Syria

so what exactly is the plan here? The US escalates it's involvement in Syria which leads to what? War with Russia?

Jason Thompson
Jason Thompson

The American empire produces huge numbers of troops, cops, and spies, so it's only natural they'll find their way into politics.
Furthermore these people have security clearances and relatively generous pensions that other state employees like teachers lack. Their patrons will use them to consolidate power in the military/security complex to keep it away from anyone who might change things. We're in the Marius/Sulla stage of the republic, militarized camps facing off against the people they're supposed to govern.

Joshua Reyes
Joshua Reyes

More weapons for neo nazis in Ukraine
Reigniting conflict in Syria should it die down to keep pressure on Assad/Iran
Sending surface ships into the Persian Gulf to manufacture an incident that "justifies" war with Iran, Gulf of Tonkin 2.0.

Gabriel Williams
Gabriel Williams

Domination of the Eurasian continent is their primary concern. The ultimate goal is the neutralization of any and all oppositional powers capable of opposing them, namely China and Russia, and places like Syria are just steps on the road toward that goal. They're particularly concerned with this New Silk Road that China is planning, because its completion would cement Chinese domination both of the continent itself, as well as all the countries it is currently planned to pass through, which are sitting on top of tremendous amounts of essential natural resources, which would inevitably be developed once they have access to the sort of high-speed, efficient infrastructure that the NSR is meant to provide.

Attached: China-Silk-Road-Map.jpg (295.2 KB, 1160x821)

Sebastian Foster
Sebastian Foster

Attached: ec1e5ab91ad8.png (105.65 KB, 1050x695)

James Powell
James Powell

Is this image available in other languages or just German fam?

Tyler Allen
Tyler Allen

The title reads something like: "One belt, One Road: With the Silk Road Initiative, China is building a global web of infrastructure. [orange part:] Finished and planned projects by November 2015." Red lines are economic corridors (massive infrastructure developments), black/grey lines are railroads, solid black lines are oil pipelines, green lines are gas, blue lines are shipping (obviously), and ships are harbours. All the pink countries receive money from China.
What I do wonder is how the hell they're gonna make the corridor through Iran and Turkey work.

Dominic Gray
Dominic Gray

The most key aspect of OBOR is that the planned goal is to ensure the developing world will be developed, this throws a spanner in American global policy which requires the developing world to be mired in poverty.

There is nothing the Americans hate more that nations from the developing world are able to afford cars, phones and computers at rates not controlled by their exorbitant prices

Attached: 2af35e27508532d325a27fa6d7b8295d--crossover-hetalia.jpg (12.99 KB, 221x240)

Jackson Bailey
Jackson Bailey

This sounds kinda like the pre-verse riff of BOC's "Let Go." Or not.

Michael King
Michael King

Also to note is that finishing even the initial stages of OBOR makes the previous strategic dominance of the ocean worthless since most of the world would then be connected via the OBOR

Attached: China-central-asia-infrastructure-0.jpg (217.27 KB, 920x476)

Dominic Taylor
Dominic Taylor

This is wrong, for the following reasons:

1. The actual, real goal of this is to get countries away from making economic ties with India (not America) who is China's nuclear-armed regional rival and one which they have a border dispute with. America is not a going concern here at all because America doesn't care about India's border problems.

2. If China wanted to develop the developing world they wouldn't have fucked over Zimbabwe by demanding their loans be repaid in USD. This has caused a massive budget crisis there which lead to massive reductions of Zim's state healthcare and education monopolies, causing younger people to be stupider than ever before while old people die off. It's also touched upon the state food bank, reductions in which has caused rioting in their capital Harare which prompted a military curfew.

3. China won't develop central asia using land-based railroads alone. America did that in Iraq in 2004, by gifting Iraq a GPS-based train signalling system that allowed for train functionality without taxis (train operators had to communicate via courier). Most of this was destroyed in the recent civil war, as ISIS saw little need in railroads. What's needed is security and funding commitments, things China has not provided and in fact inhibited (see Zimbabwe above).

4. Even if the plan worked, half of their railroads go through Russia who isn't their friend while the other western route has to go through Turkey and Greece, both of whom have much greater American and Russian sympathies than Chinese ones. The two railroads that really work in that plan are the ones through Pakistan and Myanmar, as they create a literal ring around India. Again this highlights the true purpose: to deal with India, not America. But even then the Pakistani railroad doesn't even connect to China's main network.

Again this is an Indian-Chinese fight not an American-Chinese one. This fight is more immediate (see their ongoing border conflict) and more practical to solve. America is only involved because America is an ally of India, but a low priority one hence why China can still have a border conflict with them without it escalating.

Attached: India-China-relations-960x576.jpg (44.63 KB, 960x576)

Christopher Reed
Christopher Reed

why are japanese thighs so perfect

Adrian Collins
Adrian Collins

Japanese women are so hideous, god it’s not even funny. Like I can’t even right now.

Joshua Flores
Joshua Flores

India actually goes between fighting and working with China, they rely quite abit on China to help their green India plans aswell

As for Zimbabwe , I'll go on a hunch it may be to a push for regime change to a more pragmatic leader.

But yes, you are right that China has not projected it's power enough, which they are building up, and while I wouldn't call turkey and Greece friends of China, Greece has received much investment and support from China:

mobile.nytimes.com/2017/08/26/world/europe/greece-china-piraeus-alexis-tsipras.html?referer=https://www.google.com.tw/

And turkey while not so approving of China's moves on Xinjiang, has mentioned cooperation on OBOR:

turkishpolicy.com/article/870/one-belt-one-road-initiative-perks-and-challenges-for-turkey

Lastly, as for Russia, China is their main importer of gas, they along with Venezuela and Iran are banking on the petro-yuan to alleviate the crushing weight of the petrodollar.

Attached: 21119731991-c27478b18d-o.jpg (202.03 KB, 1500x997)

Austin Hughes
Austin Hughes

That doesn't change the fact that India and China cannot agree on the most basic of things: a boundary. And if China wanted to push out Mugabe starving innocent Zimbabweans is not the way to do it. All they've done is forced a coup, because the military was not going to accept furloughing or deferred payments. Zim's military may be more pragmatic, but that works both ways as they can also choose to simply not pay and let the population starve. A situation where China gets no money while Zimbabwe's population is off worse than it was before China got involved in money lending (which is a capitalist activity, by the way).

As for Greece, they are bankrupt. China showed up to a liquidation sale run by Germany. This will only end in disaster as Greeks begin to starve too, forcing a crisis that will lead to another military coup. And if Greece's Junta is any indication of how a new coup would go down, it would be allied with the US or Russia, not China. It's a similar situation to Zimbabwe except there are more interested bidders Greece's military can find.

Lastly, as for Russia, China is their main importer of gas, they along with Venezuela and Iran are banking on the petro-yuan to alleviate the crushing weight of the petrodollar.

This is a retarded idea because their state oil company just went bankrupt because it could not fend off Saudi price dumping. All they've done is let the Saudis destroy one of their largest state enterprises, triggering perhaps the largest corporate bankruptcy in capitalist history. China was made the bitch of Saudi Arabia, who didn't have to fire a shot. It's partially why Beijing is trying to wean itself off gas cars, because it'd cut down on Saudi influence in their economy.

Jaxson Nelson
Jaxson Nelson

Well they`d better get a move on with their engagement plans for Zimbabwe and Greece.

As for CEFC I think their going under government investigation now, so some changes to company policy are up ahead but I doubt it's a total collapse in the long run

Lastly China is just getting into their role in OBOR, they never could have predicted Donald trump would act so irresponsibly which would force them into a leadership position, I think they will iron out these issues going into the future.

The boundary issue usually flares around election or politics periods in India, it's a problem with varying levels of importance but for now I have not seen a point where it would result in the severing of all ties between India and China

Joseph Thomas
Joseph Thomas

Some more proofs to my claims:

timeslive.co.za/news/africa/2018-03-21-china-rejects-mnangagwas-looters-list/

for China to invest more in Zimbabwe there was need for policy clarity which was a hindering factor under President Robert Mugabe's rule.

Ryan Hill
Ryan Hill

Forbes article on the China Europe rail

forbes.com/sites/wadeshepard/2018/03/22/the-hidden-economic-rationale-of-china-europe-rail/#68a4d62b40d1

Dylan Adams
Dylan Adams

Lastly China is just getting into their role in OBOR, they never could have predicted Donald trump would act so irresponsibly which would force them into a leadership position, I think they will iron out these issues going into the future.

This is entirely irrelevant, besides the fact that China always led the BRICS and know what competent leadership is they chose not to do it because that would mean less profits. China could have chosen not to starve out Zimbabwe, they chose money. When they try starving out Greece they'll find Greeks spitting it back into their face, and they will be boxed into the same corner as Germany when Greeks drop the Euro. They will then cry crocodile tears and try to sanction Greece, only to find them supported by either America or Russia.

Bullshit. Utter, complete, total bullshit. If Chinese banks did not have enough "policy clarity" they should not have issued the loans. They did anyways because like all capitalists they wanted to gamble and speculate. And the article you listed proves my intuition correct: Zimbabwe's new military leadership is now completely mercenary since the population is already starving and soldiers are already shooting at them. Total incompetence on China's part because now they're probably not going to get paid back if they don't accept higher taxes on the mining operations they own.

At every point China's regime sought to emulate capitalists rather than learn from them. The result is the same for them: failure.

Joseph Kelly
Joseph Kelly

forbes

By the way, the rail link itself isn't actually continuous because of the Black Sea. This is where Russia's trans-siberian railway still holds the cards because it can actually move cargo from the Baltic Sea to the Pacific Ocean without stopping. Which is why Russia is so keen to hold onto the caucuses, and Crimea.

Jackson Clark
Jackson Clark

I think Greece and Zimbabwe are in fundamentally different positions too, their investment into Greece has been less fraught than theirs into Zimbabwe, are you saying that the moneg they put into Zimbabwe didn't get bled out by corruption and they don't have a right to be angry at this?

I'd rather wait to see if the crocodile can turn things around

Ian Roberts
Ian Roberts

are you saying that the moneg they put into Zimbabwe didn't get bled out by corruption and they don't have a right to be angry at this?

No, I'm saying they shouldn't have starved people, which is what they did. They starved them because they were angry and wanted their money back. Just like every other capitalist, and is why China's plans are totally melting apart there because the new regime they've forced knows they don't have to feed people to maintain control. There is no reason for them to pay back now, or at least not charge China higher taxes for the businesses they own.

It is complete and utter failure, with nothing but death and famine in it's wake. As one would expect of a capitalist regime.

I'd rather wait to see if the crocodile can turn things around

Turn what around? Zimbabwe has no domestic food industry and is fully reliant upon imports and aid. Hospitals serve no medicine and are closed, teachers do not show up for work as the state cannot pay them. Their military is aware that they are the only source of food and healthcare in the country, this gives them a huge amount of leverage to do whatever they want. Without any free and fair elections (a process China conveniently avoided while Mugabe was in power), there is no reason for them to not just starve everyone by not paying back their loans. They have nothing to loose.

Nathan Hall
Nathan Hall

Are you telling me their military doesn't want to fix their own country?

Xavier Green
Xavier Green

Of course they don't. At this point they are operating a fascist regime, which they have to because starving people rioting in the capital would otherwise overthrow them. The capital is already locked down through checkpoints, residents subject to curfew. Nothing can feasibly oppose them, and the only opposition is malnourished and slowly starving to death if they haven't tried escaping to South Africa already. Hospitals and schools are now rare outside the capital, so the country is also completely screwed long-term as citizens get no education.

China has overseen every step of this fall, facilitating it through their demands for debt repayment. As all capitalists do.

Parker Gonzalez
Parker Gonzalez

I don't see any ethnic cleansing, how is it facists?

Ethan Miller
Ethan Miller

To be honest, America would never allow a grassroots leftist (left of neoliberalism in America, so not really saying much) party to have power. Even Sanders is too much for them, so they had to reel it in and run the spooks covertly to wrestle back control from the populist movements. Just more COINTEL shit, same as it ever was.

Oliver Gomez
Oliver Gomez

That doesn't change the fact that India and China cannot agree on the most basic of things: a boundary.
Geopolitical boundaries are becoming increasingly irrelevant in the face of global dominance by corporate influence. Borders matter to national bourgeoisie that rely on state governments to secure resources and markets. When a corporation can just buy rights to this or that area regardless of the technical political affiliation of the region, de jure political ownership is made increasingly superfluous.

From the 19th century until WW2, for a company to access resources or markets, they had to have governmental control of the region. The end of WW2 lead to the predominance of international-bourgeois alliances in the form of multi-national corporations. Instead of British colonies exploited by British companies, nominal control was given to local/native governments, who then had to rely on participation with these multinationals to not be completely economically bankrupt from the start.

Border considerations are only important to governments, but as long as governments rely on international corporations to exist, they will remain a secondary consideration at best.