I know you. You’re somebody I know well or slightly or only as a public figure, and you hate Trump.

No, you’re not out rioting and destroying and burning, but you’re doing your part. You ruin your TV shows or podcasts, which are purportedly about non-political topics and which I otherwise enjoy, by interjecting Democratic rah-rah rhetoric. One of you, for example, in the middle of a podcast about old movies and TV, broke without warning into a pro-Democratic rant, expressing the urgent hope that Texas will “turn blue” in November. Two others, on a podcast about the arts, actually asserted that the Democratic convention was splendidly produced and deeply moving.

Consistently, you talk about politics as if it were still, I don’t know, 1990, or earlier, when there were Republicans like Jesse Helms and Strom Thurmond on the Hill, when there were no socialists or sharia advocates in the House Democratic caucus, and when nobody had ever heard of gender non-binaries.

Some of you don’t have TV shows or podcasts. You’re just ordinary citizens, friends or acquaintances of mine who sit at home and reflexively share anti-Trump memes on your social-media accounts. Most of those memes misrepresent facts that I damn well know you haven’t got a clue about, one way or the other. You don’t seem interested in learning the facts. You just want to hammer Trump. Facts or lies, it doesn’t matter. For some reason, it makes you feel good.

This is nothing new. You opposed him, virulently, in 2016. On election night, as one state after another went his way, you were in a panic. And with good reason – or so, at least, it seemed to you at the time.

You had bought into the argument that he was dangerously unstable and that with him in the White House the world would go spinning out of control. The possibilities of misadventure were endless. First off, he would pull us out of NATO and the UN. Then, who knew? The sky was the limit. He could set off Armageddon by saying something crazy on the phone to Putin or Xi or Kim Jong Un. He could order sudden, unwarranted troop build-ups and fleet movements that would ratchet up tensions. Or he might even – in fact he almost certainly would – order an unprovoked, unilateral invasion of some foreign country or other. Iran, say, or North Korea. Or Venezuela. Or someplace in Africa. Who knew? With this madman, anything could happen.

That wasn’t all, of course. You had also been persuaded that Trump was a racist and xenophobe. You knew that once in the Oval Office, he would lose no time finding ways to terrorize blacks. He would round up all the illegal Mexicans in the country, and maybe even the legal ones too, and send them back to Mexico. Naturally he’d also ship all the Muslims back home. Plus, his antisemitism was so deep-seated that he would almost surely find something terrible to do to Israel.

And that still wasn’t all. In addition to being an irrational warmonger and coldblooded bigot, Trump was a dictator in the making, prepared to take your rights away. He’d ban abortion outright, undo gay marriage, and crack down mercilessly on unfriendly news media. If you dared to march in the streets to protest any of these actions, he’d have you arrested and keep you locked up indefinitely, denying you your right to an attorney and a jury trial. Meanwhile he’d govern by fiat, ordering the arrest of opponents on Capitol Hill and perhaps even closing down Congress entirely. He might even torture and execute his domestic enemies. No wonder you and your friends were terrified!

Needless to say, none of this happened. Instead Trump racked up the most extraordinary record of accomplishments of any president’s first term. By lowering taxes and slashing a record number of regulations, he brought employment figures to unprecedented heights, with job numbers for blacks, Latinos, and Asians the highest ever. He reversed the export of manufacturing jobs abroad, replaced NAFTA with a much better North American trade agreement, and improved the trade imbalances with Europe and China. Median household income reached a new peak; GDP and consumer confidence hit – and, until the COVID lockdown, stayed at – remarkably high levels.

He initiated extensive criminal-justice reforms, took action on drug prices, improved VA health care, and introduced Right-to-Try. He made the US oil independent and turned the country into a net natural gas exporter for the first time in over half a century. He pressured allies into pouring tens of billions of dollars more into NATO. He introduced the Space Force. He moved the US Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem, recognized the Golan Heights as Israeli territory, and arranged peace deals between Israel and the UAE, Israel and Bahrain, and Serbia and Kosovo.

And much more. Over and over again, Trump has made it clear that he’s about improving life for ordinary Americans and protecting the country for all of us. Meanwhile, the Democrats have shown that they’re willing to kowtow to radicals, however violent, in order to win power and to take almost any position, however absurd, as long as it’s the opposite of Trump’s. Trump has a powerful sense of adult responsibility; they have none. Instead they have emotional appeals with no basis in facts, utopian policy proposals that are untethered from reality, slogans about love and tolerance that they chant even as they burn buildings, punch old ladies, and call black cops the “N” word.

No, you may oppose his cancelation of the Iran Deal and the Paris Climate Accords, even though the former was a naïve, cowardly act of appeasement and the latter was an expensive piece of virtue signaling. And you may hate the wall on the Mexican border, even though there’s no good reason to hate it unless you’re a drug trafficker or sex trafficker or someone who stiffs American workers by employing illegals for rock-bottom wages.

But there’s no defense for your readiness to parrot the line that Trump has done nothing, or that his record is one of total chaos and disaster. Nor is there any excuse for your allergy to honest debate about what he’s actually done. In fact, most of his accomplishments are of the sort that people of good will – people who care about the peace and prosperity of their fellow Americans – should, if they look at them clearly and calmly and not through the lens of irrational rage, be able to admire, or at least accept with good grace.

Even if, for some perverse reason, you don’t like his accomplishments, you should be able to respect the fact that he’s fulfilled a greater percentage of his campaign promises than any other president in memory. And he’s managed to do it while Democrats and “Never Trump” Republicans, along with members of the “Deep State” and news media, have spent every day of his presidency disparaging him, ignoring or belittling or lying about his achievements, making countless false accusations against him, and actively – and feloniously – trying to bring him down.

No, he’s not perfect. But who is? If you’ve actually been paying attention during the past four years and still hate him, exactly which president are you comparing him to? Surely you’re not comparing him to his opponent, a mediocrity, now at best half-senile, who has nothing to show for a half century in politics except a family enriched through corrupt foreign shenanigans on a spectacular scale. In terms of sheer accomplishment, Trump is head and shoulders above almost all of his predecessors, and inconceivably superior to Biden.

Now, it could be that you really are entirely unaware of the real history of the Trump administration. Perhaps you do get all your news, to use the term loosely, from Rachel Maddow and Don Lemon and the New York Times and Washington Post. Perhaps you never look at any news sources that are sympathetic to the president. Perhaps you’ve missed every good thing that Trump has done – either that, or you’ve been talked by Rachel and Don and company into seeing all these things as somehow, to coin a phrase, deplorable.

Or is it possible that you’re not all that low-information a voter after all? Could it be that you’ve been following developments pretty closely all along, and that, despite Trump’s successes, and despite the fact that he’s proven all the dark predictions of 2016 entirely wrong, you’ve insisted on sticking to your guns?

Now, why would this be? Do you see your stubbornness as a virtue? Did your hostility toward Trump become such an essential part of you that you’ve been incapable of shedding it, no matter how many times he proved your expectations wrong? Or could it be that your presidential criteria are entirely superficial? Could it be that after four years of stellar performance, you still despise Trump for no other reason than that you find him aesthetically unappealing? Although he’s an infinitely better chief executive than Obama was, do you miss Obama because of his elan, his panache, his tony style of public speaking, the way he held his head up, chin high? Or because his suits looked better on him? Did he send a thrill up your leg, as he did for Chris Matthews?

Do you miss the feeling of virtue you experienced every time you looked at him, knowing that you had helped put the first black president into the White House? Could it be that you actually buy into the ridiculous claim that Obama, because he was so clubbable and charming and cut such an elegant, natty figure, was a more suitable representative for America when in the company of kings and queens and diplomats? Do you really not grasp that international relations are not a matter of cocktail-party niceties but of knowing how to make a deal and use power wisely for the benefit of your country’s citizens? Or does it really just come down to the fact that you’re more interested in words than in actions – that you’re still enamored of Obama because he’s a smooth-talking son of a gun, and that you still despise Trump because he hasn’t changed his style of personal presentation since entering office?

The other night I watched Deep Impact. A comet hits the earth. Morgan Freeman is president. He is a president from Central Casting, striking just the right solemn tone, and using just the right kind of elevated language, as he addresses the nation about the impending disaster. The same goes for Bill Pullman as the president in Independence Day. And Henry Fonda in Fail Safe. And Harrison Ford in Air Force One. They’re all of an ilk. Obama might well have studied them, so perfectly did he fit the mold. Well, Trump didn’t. He isn’t remotely like a president in a movie. Is that what you have against him, perhaps without even realizing it?

Whatever the case, it’s obvious that your disdain for Trump isn’t based on informed, mature judgments about his presidential record. Instead, it’s about shallow stuff, visceral nonsense – the kinds of considerations that should not enter the mind of a serious, responsible-minded citizen when deciding which candidate is best equipped to govern the most powerful country on earth.

If the very sight of Trump still outrages you so much, in short, it’s not him. It’s you.

6. 

Chief of Defence Intelligence comments on threats the UK will face in coming decades

Lieutenant-General Jim Hockenhull looks to the future, outlining the changing character of the threat and the role of UK Defence

13 September 2020

The UK’s adversaries are developing new ways of operating, backed up by cutting edge military capabilities that leverage advanced technologies, the Chief of Defence Intelligence today warns.

In the first ever media briefing at Defence Intelligence’s Cambridgeshire base, Lt Gen Hockenhull has said that the shifting global picture has changed the character of warfare in ways that will challenge the West to keep pace with adversaries who do not play by the rules.

Global players such as Russia and China continually challenge the existing order without prompting direct conflict, operating in the expanding grey-zone between war and peacetime.

Conflict is bleeding into new domains, such as cyber and space, threatening our cohesion, our resilience and our global interests.

Chief of Defence Intelligence, Lieutenant-General Jim Hockenhull said:

Whilst conventional threats remain, we have seen our adversaries invest in Artificial Intelligence, machine learning and other ground-breaking technologies, whilst also supercharging more traditional techniques of influence and leverage.

As we have seen in Salisbury, hostile states are willing to take incredible risks. We must make sure that we have both the intent and the capability to ensure that such wanton acts of irresponsibility will not go unpunished.

Traditionally more comfortable in the shadows, Defence Intelligence [DI] have been brought to the fore by recent developments. Tasked with watching for global instability, tracking threats to the UK and monitoring human rights violations, amongst other things, analysts at DI provide advice to senior officials, shaping the Government’s approach to emerging threats and supporting UK forces deployed across the globe.

DI are already well placed to make this shift. Operating the world’s only fully integrated TOP SECRET collaboration centre, they are already working closely with 5 Eyes partners and other allied intelligence agencies.

Moreover, in their support to the Coronavirus response, they have already proved their agility and adaptability when faced with new challenges. Possessing the UK’s sole strategic medical intelligence capability, they rapidly shifted focus the Covid Assessment Team, or CAT. This moved their analysts from tasks such as assessing the UK’s overseas medical capabilities and understanding bio-hacking, to assessing the current and future threat posed by COVID-19.

7.

British military intelligence chief warns of ‘supercharging’ adversaries

Iran Press TV

Sunday, 13 September 2020 5:40 PM

The Chief of Defense Intelligence (DI) has sounded the alarm over the rising threat emanating from Britain’s state adversaries and has called on the government to take corrective action.

Lieutenant-General Jim Hockenhull warned that Britain’s enemies are developing novel ways to “influence and leverage” while also “supercharging more traditional techniques”.

Addressing a group of selected journalists at the Defense Intelligence headquarters in Cambridgeshire, Hockenhull warned that on current trajectory the “West” will struggle to keep up with “Russia, China and other global players” who according to the DI chief “challenge the existing [international] order”.

In trying to outline a wide range of military and non-military threats to the UK over several decades, Hockenhull focused his lecture on the changing character of warfare and the emergence of cyber and space as “new military domains”.

According to the DI chief, the UK’s main adversaries are investing more and more in “artificial intelligence”, “machine learning” and other “ground-breaking technologies”.

At the concluding part of his lecture Hockenhull stressed that the UK must ensure it has both the “intent and the capability” to contain the military and non-military threats posed by its core adversaries.

Whilst it is not unusual for the DI chief to address journalists, what is fairly unprecedented is the brazen political tone of a serving British military intelligence chief.

This speaks to the politicization of British military intelligence and its open appeal to government for more funding to contain the so-called “threats” set out by its own leadership.

8. ΑΠΟ ΠΟΤΕ ΣΑΣ ΕΧΟΥΜΕ ΓΡΑΨΕΙ ΟΤΙ ΘΑ ΕΠΙΧΕΙΡΗΘΕΙ ΝΑ ΔΟΛΟΦΟΝΗΘΕΙ Ο ΠΡΟΕΔΡΟΣ ΤΡΑΜΠ; ΤΟΥ “ΕΣΤΕΙΛΑΝ” ΔΕΜΑ ΜΕ ΔΗΛΗΤΗΡΙΟ, ΜΟΛΙΣ!.. (19-09-2020, λίγο πριν τα, Μεσάνυχτα, ώρα Ελλάδος)! Παρακολουθείστε το θέμα!.. 

ΕΛΕΟΣ ΠΙΑ ΡΕ ΞΕΦΤΙΛΕΣ, ΕΛΕΟΣ!..

9. 

Bulgarian Survivor Of Suspected Russian Poison Attack Decries Suspended Probe

By Ron Synovitz, Polina Paunova September 03, 2020

SOFIA — Bulgarian arms dealer Emilian Gebrev fell into a coma in Sofia in April 2015 after someone smeared the door handles of his car with a substance similar to Novichok — the nerve agent that hospitalized former Russian spy Sergei Skripal and Russian opposition leader Aleksei Navalny.

Bulgarian officials eventually charged three Russian agents in absentia with attempted murder by using a “phosphorus-organic substance” that poisoned Gebrev, his son Hristo, and the production director of Gebrev’s Sofia-based firm, EMCO Production. All three were hospitalized and fell into comas but survived.

But amid the international furor over the recent poisoning in Russia of the outspoken Kremlin critic Navalny, Bulgarian Prosecutor-General Ivan Geshev has suddenly ordered the suspension of Sofia’s probe.

“I’m not a KGB agent or a politician,” Gebrev told RFE/RL after being told the investigation had been suspended.

“Prosecutors said the direct perpetrators were Russian officers. OK. Russian officers,” Gebrev said. “I may be extremely low in the hierarchy, but what has happened to me is a pure act of terrorism.”

For years, Gebrev has been pushing for Bulgarian authorities to conduct a thorough investigation into who tried to kill him.

His prodding led to revelations that have helped link his case to the Novichok attack against the Russian former double-agent, Skripal, in Salisbury, England.

Bulgarian investigators initially said they’d found traces of the highly toxic insecticide chlorpyrifos in Gebrev’s coffee and food at his home, but no substance banned by the international Chemical Weapons Convention such as Novichok.

Gebrev said that about six months after he fell into a coma with Novichok-like symptoms, the Bulgarian Prosecutor-General’s Office stopped any serious attempt to discover the culprits or learn more about what was used to poison him.

“At my request and insistence, [the investigation] was continued, and it ended again after about another six or seven months,” Gebrev told RFE/RL. “There was a big lull until 2018.”

Salisbury Hit Squad

Then — on March 4, 2018 — Skripal and his daughter Yulia were poisoned by Novichok thought to have been spread on the front door handle of his home in Salisbury.

It was Gebrev himself, reading press reports about the Skripals’ symptoms, who made the connection between the Salisbury attack and his ordeal.

International media picked up on Gebrev’s story after he spoke out publicly about their similar symptoms.

British allegations that Russia had sent a hit squad to Salisbury to poison Skripal brought fresh impetus to the investigation in Sofia.

In October 2018, Bulgarian authorities created a special investigative team and reopened the Gebrev case.

FBI and British intelligence agents joined the team. They reviewed security-camera footage of the parking garage below Gebrev’s company headquarters and determined someone had slipped inside to smear poison on his car-door handles.

In January 2019, formal charges of attempted murder were announced in absentia against three Russian suspects initially identified as Sergei Pavlov, Georgy Gorshkov, and Sergei Fedotov.

Fedotov was then identified by the Britain-based research group Bellingcat as the purported commander of the Novichok attack in Salisbury.

Bellingcat and the German news site Der Spiegel also confirmed in a joint investigation that Fedotov was a false identity used for traveling outside Russia by Denis Sergeyev — a major general from an “elite overseas clandestine-operations” team that is part of Russia’s GRU military intelligence unit 29155.

Western intelligence agencies say the secret unit has been active in Europe for years, carrying out subversive activities that included coup attempts and assassinations.

They say the GRU unit had been unknown to them before the attack on the Skripals. But the investigation into Gebrev’s case shed light on its activities.

With agents from the FBI and British intelligence involved, the reopened Bulgarian investigation determined Sergeyev had used the same false name, Sergei Fedotov, when he and the other Russian suspects stayed at a Sofia hotel near Gebrev’s company headquarters in April 2015.

They were staying there the day Gebrev was poisoned, and one of their rooms had a view of the entrance to the underground garage where Gebrev’s car was parked.

“When the state wants to investigate, then it can,” Gebrev told RFE/RL shortly before Bulgarian prosecutors announced the attempted murder charges against the Russian suspects.

“The more I analyze what has happened so far, however cruel and ugly it sounds, it is the result of an extremely thought-out, purposeful, and consistent war against me, the company I lead, and, analyzing the whole situation, against companies in the defense sector,” Gebrev said.

Déjà Vu

Gebrev had a sense of déjà vu on August 20 when Navalny fell ill while traveling aboard a domestic commercial flight from Siberia.

Russian doctors who initially treated Navalny said there was no sign of poisoning, and Russian investigators appeared reluctant to check claims by Navalny’s associates that the Kremlin was involved.

But German doctors treating Navalny after his transfer to Berlin announced on September 2 that there were traces in his body of Novichok, a phosphorus-organic chemical warfare agent that was first developed in the Soviet Union.

Gebrev had told RFE/RL the previous day that he expected medical tests in Germany would lead to that conclusion.

“For one reason or another, in the Skripal case, the British side came out with clear information that it was the same or a similar [chemical] warfare poison [that was used against me],” Gebrev told RFE/RL on September 1. “In the case of Navalny…for all the symptoms, statements, and initial comments, things lead there.”

Weeks earlier, in late July, Gebrev said in an open letter that he saw deliberate procrastination by Prosecutor-General Geshev on the investigation into his poisoning.

Gebrev linked the situation to his arms-trading business, but said there also were “geopolitical” factors behind Sofia’s failure to hold a trial for the three suspected Russian agents.

Gebrev wrote: “Behind the ostentatious, half-hearted, and declarative actions” of Geshev lies a “fear of geopolitical consequences.”

More recently, Gebrev told RFE/RL he has reviewed Geshev’s August 26 order to suspend the Bulgarian probe, as well as other documents related to his case. He said things there are “not right.”

“In the name of truth, I am familiar [with the progress of the investigation],” Gebrev said.

“When an investigation is terminated, you have the right as a victim to review the documentation on it,” he explained. “I was familiar with the investigation and there were a lot of omissions and mistakes.”

Although Bulgaria is a member of the Organization for the Prevention of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), Gebrev accused Bulgarian investigators of being neither credible nor transparent with OPCW experts.

“Every effort has been made not to involve the [OPCW] as a side that has these strengths and capabilities to prove the exact source material,” he said. “[The Bulgarian side] hid documents. They said they were connecting [with the OPCW]. But they did not connect.”

“And they think that no one is watching what they are doing here in the puddle,” Gebrev said. “Thank God there are other investigators who are aware of every single thing that is done in our country.”

The Kremlin denies any role in the poisoning of Gebrev, the Skripals, or Navalny.

The Bulgarian Prosecutor-General’s Office has not responded to questions from RFE/RL about what cooperation, if any, it has sought from the Kremlin to bring the Russian suspects to trial in Sofia.

Gebrev said that is a question he is unable to answer.

But he told RFE/RL: “If the Bulgarian side was looking for [cooperation from Russia in the investigation], it did it with fear — not with dignity — of a state, of a former ally, of a current partner.”

“When you are a serious person and ask a serious person a question, you get a serious answer,” he said. “When you shrink and do something else, the reaction is different.”

Gebrev said the suspension of his case could be related to domestic politics in Bulgaria rather than any direct connection to the Navalny poisoning.

He pointed to Bulgaria’s embattled prosecutor-general and Prime Minister Boyko Borisov.

Both have faced calls to resign at mass demonstrations across Bulgaria since early July — with allegations that government ministries and the judiciary, including the Prosecutor-General’s Office, are controlled by criminal organizations.

“Things are very simple,” Gebrev said. “Maybe they are related to this long-standing discontent in the country…. Discontent of two figures in our society. In any case, these two figures are directly related to the case.”

“The prosecutor-general cannot be unaware of how such a landmark case is developing,” Gebrev said. “Not that I am a significant person, but the case is significant because it does not happen every day in Bulgaria or in Europe.”

“And there is no way from a purely political, politico-economic, and geopolitical point of view that the prime minister of the country is not interested,” Gebrev concluded.

Written by Ron Synovitz in Prague with reporting from Sofia by Polina Paunova and RFE/RL’s Bulgarian Service

Source: https://www.rferl.org/a/date-set-for-trial -of-alleged-killer-of-former-chechen -rebel-commander-in-berlin/30818633.html

Copyright (c) 2020. RFE/RL, Inc. Reprinted with the permission of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, 1201 Connecticut Ave., N.W. Washington DC 20036.

10. 

NATO Military Committee Chairman visits Allied Land Command

• 09 Sep. 2020

Air Chief Marshal Sir Stuart Peach, Chairman of the NATO Military Committee visited NATO’s Allied Land Command in Izmir, Turkey on 9 September 2020. He met with Commander LANDCOM, Lieutenant General Roger L. Cloutier Jr who took office in August of this year. While at the Command, Air Chief Marshal Peach received briefings on LANDCOM’s mission responsibilities and the security situation in neighbouring countries.

Speaking with Lt Gen Cloutier Jr, the Chairman discussed the Defence and Deterrence of the Euro-Atlantic Area concept, how LANDCOM enables the readiness, interoperability, standardization, and competencies of NATO and Partner land forces as well as the challenges from NATO’s southern flank. Commander LANDCOM also took the opportunity to inform the Chairman of LANDCOM’s new approach for Combat Readiness Evaluations (CREVAL), which it undertakes, under the auspices of NATO’s Allied Command Operation.

The Chairman commended Commander LANDCOM for the work the command assumes on behalf of the Alliance – all the training, conferences, CREVAL certifications, and exercises. Air Chief Marshal stressed how NATO is constantly looking how it can further improve the readiness of its forces, to move them rapidly, and to sustain them and how greatly encouraged he was following his briefings and visit at LANDCOM.

Air Chief Marshal Sir Stuart Peach stated, “The Alliance is playing a key role in responding to challenges from the south, including through our mission in Afghanistan, our training mission in Iraq and our AWACS surveillance flights for the Global Coalition to Defeat ISIS. Working with our partners, our aim is to help manage crises in the region. To build the resilience of our partners, so we can help prevent crises from occurring, and increase our own deterrence and defence when dealing with challenges from our southern neighbourhood”.

The term Combat Readiness Evaluation of Land Headquarters and Units (CREVAL) denotes the validation and assessment of combat readiness of earmarked land force units declared for conducting allied operations under the NATO’s Allied Command Operations. The CREVAL consists of two phases, an in-barracks phase and an in-field inspection.

-/-