Is Trump Planning a Korean Peace Surprise? And Can the Deep State Stop Him?

North Korea’s got nukes.  And it’s got ICBMs.  Even so, US hawks have pushed the Korean peace process into a dead end.  But can they keep it there?  Not just Russia and China want negotiations.  Maybe Donald Trump wants to negotiate too!  Is the deep state going to push back?  What do you think?  It already has!  And why didn’t Seth Rogen melt off Kim Jong Un’s face?

*Follow us here at Newsbud Twitter

**Subscribe here at BFP-Newsbud YouTube Channel

Watch Episode Preview

Watch Members Only Full Episode Here

***Subscribing Members must be logged in to see the full video





Featured Video MP3 Audio Clip

***Subscribing Members must be logged in to listen to the audio


Show notes

Nikki Haley to UN on North Korea: “Enough is enough”

U.S. Seeks U.N. Consent to Interdict North Korean Ships

Trump may have to settle for deterring, not disarming, North Korea

We’re at the Tipping Point on North Korea…and Who’s Lying About that Aircraft Carrier?

Trump may offer tactical nukes to Seoul, says NBC

Japanese defence figures: US prepared to use military action against North Korea

A grand bargain with China could remove North Korea’s nuclear threat – but it would destroy America’s global influence

How Sony, Obama, Seth Rogen and the CIA Secretly Planned to Force Regime Change in North Korea

How the CIA secretly published Dr Zhivago

U.S. military apologizes for ‘highly offensive’ leaflets it distributed in Afghanistan

Newsbud Exclusive-Trump’s Afghan War: Based on Neocon Lies.

Standing before a podium at the Fort Myer military base in Arlington, Virginia, President Donald Trump addressed an audience of soldiers on August 21. Trump said the consequences of an exit from Afghanistan “are both predictable and unacceptable. 9/11, the worst terrorist attack in our history, was planned and directed from Afghanistan because that country was ruled by a government that gave comfort and shelter to terrorists. A hasty withdrawal would create a vacuum that terrorists, including ISIS and al Qaeda, would instantly fill, just as happened before September 11th.”

In order to believe this, facts must be put aside and the official version of events be unquestioningly accepted. There is no evidence the attack of September 11 was “planned and directed from Afghanistan.” Then Secretary of State Colin Powell said two weeks after the attack he would “in the near future… to put out… a document that will describe quite clearly the evidence that we have linking [Osama bin Laden] to this attack.”

However, the following day during a press conference in the Rose Garden with President Bush, Powell said the American people would not be permitted to see the evidence. He added the United States had irrefutable proof of bin Laden’s complicity, but “most of it is classified.” Powell’s remark was an effort to conceal the fact the Bush administration had no evidence Osama bin Laden planned and orchestrated the attack from a cave in Afghanistan. Investigative journalist Seymour Hersh cited officials from the CIA and the Justice Department as saying there was no solid evidence of this.

In 1998, following the US embassy bombings in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, and Nairobi, Kenya, the Taliban government offered to turn over bin Laden, but the Bush administration refused. Wakil Ahmad Muttawakil, the Taliban foreign minister, told Al Jazeera his government had made several proposals to the United States to turn over the Saudi to stand trial.

“Even before the [9/11] attacks, our Islamic Emirate had tried through various proposals to resolve the Osama issue. One such proposal was to set up a three-nation court, or something under the supervision of the Organization of the Islamic Conference [OIC]," Muttawakil said. “But the US showed no interest in it. They kept demanding we hand him over, but we had no relations with the US, no agreement of any sort. They did not recognize our government.”

After the Taliban made the proposals through the US embassy in Pakistan and an informal Taliban office at the UN in New York, the CIA station chief in Pakistan, Robert Grenier, dismissed the offer as a ploy. In mid-September 2001, Grenier had a secret meeting with Mullah Akhter Mohammed Osmani, considered the second-most powerful figure in the Taliban at the time, at a five-star hotel in the Pakistani province of Baluchistan. He said if the Taliban were serious about avoiding a US invasion, they would turn over bin Laden immediately for prosecution. Alternatively, as CIA Director George Tenet put it, the Taliban could “administer justice themselves, in a way that clearly [takes] him off the table,” in other words, the CIA wanted the Taliban to assassinate bin Laden.

The ultimatum was rejected by Taliban leader Mullah Omar. Following this, during a second meeting at a villa in Baluchistan, Grenier said Osmani should overthrow Omar and get rid of Osama bin Laden. This was also rejected. Osmani was later killed by a smart bomb during an attack by the US Air Force in Helmand Province.

The reclusive Omar had previously attempted to establish a dialogue with the United States. In response to an inquiry on bin Laden’s alleged terror activities prior to the September 11 attack, a cable sent by the United States to Omar stated: “We have detailed and solid evidence that Osama bin Laden has been engaged and is still engaged in planning, organizing, and funding acts of international terror.” The US did not provide supporting evidence to back up the accusation and this resulted in the Afghan supreme court acquitting bin Laden in October 1998.

A few months earlier, in August 1998, President Bill Clinton ordered the bombing of a Sudanese pharmaceutical factory in retaliation for the embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania. The US insisted the al-Shifa factory in Khartoum “was actually a disguised chemical weapons factory” that produced VX nerve gas. British engineer Thomas Carnaffin, who worked as a technical manager during the plant’s construction between 1992 and 1996, told reporters he never saw any evidence of the production of an ingredient needed for nerve gas. The attack violated numerous articles of the Hague Conventions.

Moreover, the owner of the Shifa factory gave interviews in which he “emphatically denied that the plant was used for anything other than pharmaceuticals, and there was never persuasive evidence to contradict his assertion. At the same time, members of the administration retreated from claims they made earlier that Osama bin Laden had what [Defense Secretary William] Cohen called ‘a financial interest in contributing to this particular facility.’ It turned out that no direct financial relationship between bin Laden and the plant could be established,” writes Richard Bernstein in his book, Out of the Blue: A Narrative of September 11, 2001.

The factory was Sudan's largest commercial manufacturer of prescription drugs for both medical and veterinary purposes, producing 50 percent of the country's supply. “Probably the most important was an anti-diarrhea remedy. They also made drugs against TB and they brought in the basic stock for antibiotics,” Carnaffin explained. It was estimated the destruction of the plant resulted in the death of tens of thousands of Sudanese. [READ MORE]

*If you are a Newsbud Community Member, you must log in to view full content.

**If you are not yet a Newsbud Community Member, just click on "SUBSCRIBE" to view subscription enrollment options.

Probable Cause with Sibel Edmonds: Uniting for a Revolution … and the Morning After

Welcome to our second experimental episode of Probable Cause. On this episode we will be delving deeper into our previous topic: clarifying which meaning of the word revolution we are basing this discussion on, using the Iranian Revolution of 1979 as an example and context to illustrate why revolution is not an end unto itself, discussing the upsides and pitfalls of uniting for a revolution both in the short and long term, and much more!

In our previous episode I provided a very brief account of my own direct experience with the Iranian Revolution of 1979. For this episode I will get down and dirty with more details and highly personal experiences, and challenge the USA version of the Iranian Revolution. I’ll talk about the Iranian dissenters during the Shah Regime: the intellectual elites, the workers’ movement, the nationalists, the centrists, and the ultra-religious right. I will tell you how the dissent went from simmering to percolating and boiling, and then reaching the point of radical revolution, and how and why differences were put aside for the common goal during the initial stage. And finally, I will give you the account of what took place the morning after … immediately after the initial objective was fulfilled-the regime change. Get ready, you will be listening to a version that is vastly different from the Hollywood movies and hostage-taking news footage and videos shoved-down your throat by the US media.

We will revisit our previous questions, and then some more. Just like last time, our next episode will be based on your reaction, responses and questions posed in the comments section below.

*To listen to our previous episode click here

Listen to the full episode here:

SUBSCRIBE

Where will the revolution in the USA come from … assuming it will ever come?

Welcome to our first experimental episode of Probable Cause. Our first few podcast episodes will explore different ideas and formats in order to determine how we can make this new podcast series interactive and spontaneous.

On this episode, after a brief introduction and discussion of the objectives behind this new show, we will delve right into our first topic: the likelihood of a revolution here in the United States, identifying (or predicting) the political segment(s) of our population most likely to revolt.

We will also discuss the general notion of revolution and the importance of not viewing a revolution as an end unto itself, together with my own direct experience with the 1979 Iranian revolution.

This episode is only the beginning of our interactive debate and discussion of this particular topic. We have several important questions for you, and our next episode will be based on your responses and questions posed in the comments section below.

Listen to the full episode here:

SUBSCRIBE

The Geopolitical Stakes in Nigeria—Part I: The Curious Role of the IMF

 What’s in the Store for the 5th Largest Supplier of Oil to the United States?

By William Engdahl

nigeriansNigeria, Africa’s most populous nation and its largest oil producer, is from all evidence being systematically thrown into chaos and a state of civil war. The recent surprise decision by the government of Goodluck Jonathan to abruptly lift subsidies on imported gasoline and other fuel has a far more sinister background than mere corruption and the Washington-based International Monetary Fund (IMF) is playing a key role. China appears to be the likely loser along with Nigeria’s population.

The recent strikes protesting the government’s abrupt elimination of gasoline and other fuel subsidies, that brought Nigeria briefly to a standstill, came as a surprise to most in the country. Months earlier President Jonathan had promised the major trade union organizations that he would conduct a gradual four-stage lifting of the subsidy to ease the economic burden. Instead, without warning he announced an immediate full removal of subsidies effective January 1, 2012. It was “shock therapy” to put it mildly. [Read more...]

Why Washington Wants ‘Finito’ with Putin

The Shady National Endowment for Democracy &The Prime Agenda of ‘Whoever’ is Next US President

By F. William Engdahl
Putin Washington clearly wants ‘finito’ with Russia’s Putin as in basta! Or as they said in Egypt last spring, Kefaya--enough!  Hillary Clinton and friends have apparently decided Russia’s prospective next president, Vladimir Putin, is a major obstacle to their plans. Few however understand why. Russia today, in tandem with China and to a significant degree Iran, form the spine, however shaky, of the only effective global axis of resistance to a world dominated by one sole superpower.

On December 8 several days after election results for Russia’s parliamentary elections were announced, showing a sharp drop in popularity for Prime Minister Putin’s United Russia party, Putin accused the United States and specifically Secretary of State Hillary Clinton of fuelling the Russian opposition protesters and their election protests. Putin stated, “The (US) Secretary of State was quick to evaluate the elections, saying that they are unfair and unjust even before she received materials from the Office of Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (the OSCE international election monitors-w.e.) observers.”[1]

Putin went on to claim that Clinton’s premature comments were the necessary signal to the waiting opposition groups that the US Government would back their protests. Clinton’s comments, the seasoned Russian intelligence pro stated, became a “signal for our activists who began active work with the US Department of State.” [2]

Major western media chose either to downplay the Putin statement or to focus almost entirely on the claims of an emerging Russian opposition movement. A little research shows that, if anything, Putin was downplaying the degree of brazen US Government interference into the political processes of his country. In this case the country is not Tunisia or Yemen or even Egypt. It is the world’s second nuclear superpower, even if it might still be an economic lesser power. Hillary is playing with thermonuclear fire. [Read more...]

A Song for my Neorogressive-NeoConservative-Neoliberal Friends

"Clowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right, here I am, Stuck in the middle with you!"- Stealer Wheels

A friend at FB suggested this song for the blind on the right and the sightless on the left; for all our Neoconservative-Neoliberal-Neoprogressive friends out there!

This site depends exclusively on readers’ support. Please help us continue by contributing directly and or purchasing Boiling Frogs showcased products.