Interesting tidbits in a Hillary Goldman Sacks wikileaks transcript.

October 16, 2016 Incoherent ramblings , , , , , , , , , , ,

Here’s some notes on a read of the first of the wikileaks transcripts of the Hillary Goldman Sacks talks.  There are three transcripts in total:


The main takeaway is that the State deptartment role is certainly not about diplomacy.  There’s lots of mentions of stirring up crap as part of the routine game.  Chaos is a desired end goal, so long as it’s controlled or directed.

page 7: North Korea:

We don’t want the North Koreans to
cause more trouble than the system can absorb. So
we’ve got a pretty good thing going with the
previous North Korean leaders

What an interesting statement.  The corollary seems to be that they do want North Korea to be stirring up trouble.  It serves to distract and limit China for example, a point made in other parts of the speech.

page 13: Syria:

So the problem for the US and the
Europeans has been from the very beginning: What
is it you — who is it you are going to try to arm?
And you probably read in the papers my view was we
should try to find some of the groups that were
there that we thought we could build relationships
with and develop some covert connections that might
then at least give us some insight into what is
going on inside Syria.

It is well known now that the US has been arming the “Free Syrian Army”, funnelling weapons in through Turkey via the Saudis.  Here Hillary is discussing exactly this process.  She actually expresses regret that the US isn’t as good at this discrete covert warmongering as they used to be.

page 14: Libya:

In Libya we didn’t have that problem.
It’s a huge place. The air defenses were not that
sophisticated and there wasn’t very — in fact,
there were very few civilian casualties.

A psychopath in action.  I hear of Hillary’s carpet bombing of Libya discussed as one of the most brutal and destructive campaigns in near history, and she describes it as “very few casualties”.  I don’t actually know the numbers, but it’s certainly interesting to see how casual she is with respect to the death of civilians.

page 15: on Iran? (or perhaps Syria):

Well, you up the pain
that they have to endure by not in any way
occupying or invading them but by bombing their
facilities. I mean, that is the option. It is not
as, we like to say these days, boots on the ground.

Causal talk of bombing other countries is so disgusting.  Notice how the word facilities is very vague.  Decoding this a bit, if you are simultaneously talking about “upping the pain” and bombing facilities, this is probably theorizing about bombing targets that have the most terror inducing and hardship effects on the civilians (water processing, energy production, schools, hospitals, …).  But that’s okay so long as it isn’t perceived as “boots on the ground”.

page 36: Russia:

And finally on Afghanistan and Russia.
Look, I would love it if we could continue to build
a more positive relationship with Russia. I worked
very hard on that when I was Secretary, and we made
some progress with Medvedev, who was president in
name but was obviously beholden to Putin, but Putin
kind of let him go and we helped them get into the
WTO for several years, and they were helpful to us
in shipping equipment, even lethal equipment, in
and out of out of Afghanistan.

Russia was a useful ally when they helped with covert wars.  Now that those covert wars are knocking on Russia’s door, the relationship has soured.  It’s hard to imagine why that relationship has deteriorated.

Did “Canada” stop bringing peace to Syria by bombing them?

March 10, 2016 Incoherent ramblings , , , , ,

March 10, 2016

Dear Prime Minister Trudeau,

My wife got caught up in the “hope and change” type propaganda associated with your campaign, but I was more cynical. I was, however, pleasantly surprised when you announced that Canada would no longer be bombing Syria. I would actually say that I was shocked and surprised that a Canadian politician had some sanity.

Needless to say, it wasn’t surprising to me that you later back-pedalled on this, and announced that “Canada” would continue to bomb Syria until Feb 22, 2016 [1, 2], apparently acting on the instructions of your handlers in Davos. The fact that this is done while simultaneously posing for photo ops with Syrian refugees and claiming that “Canada welcomes refugees” is particularly repugnant. My faith in the status quo of Canadian politics is nicely restored by your lack of action and backbone.

It is now well past Feb 22, but I have not seen any media suggesting that you have followed through on your watered down promise of less future belligerence. This could be a failing of the media, in particular, the CBC, which appears to be solidly in the pockets of armaments industry, reporting idiocy like “Most Canadians disagree” that we should continue to bring peace and solve the Syrian refugee outflux by bombing them [3]. Can you please confirm or deny whether you did limit “our” peacekeeping to one additional month of bombing.


Peeter Joot


A copy of this letter and any responses will be made available on the internet for public comment.