Mueller Confirmed Barr Memo Was Accurate

If this new report about the telephone conversation Mueller had with Barr is correct, then it confirms what we suspected and what the conclusions of the redacted report demonstrated – that the Barr 4-page memo was not inaccurate.

When Barr pressed Mueller on whether he thought Barr’s memo to Congress was inaccurate, Mueller said he did not, but felt that the media coverage of it was misinterpreting the investigation, officials said.

Mueller and Barr are old colleagues and friends. Regardless of what you might think of Barr, it always seemed unlikely to me that he would inaccurately portray the findings of the report.

Of course, I don’t expect this to change the minds of the True Believers. This whole Russiagate affair demonstrates once again how people let their political ideologies become like a religion. Facts be damned.

Update 2019-05-02: We now have a copy of Mueller’s letter.

Good Yemen Analysis

RT has a panel comparing the differing U.S. positions on Ukraine and Yemen. Both had democratically-elected governments deposed by rebels. In Ukraine, the US backs the rebels and criticizes Russia for supporting the deposed government. In Yemen, they are backing the deposed government and supporting the Saudi-lead attacks on the rebels.

Other analysis I found interesting:

All of this serves to continue to underline, for the X-thousandth time, the cornerstone operating principle of the United States: We can do anything, and places we want to conquer can do nothing (the principle of any unreasonable person or group with a lust for power over others).

Part of this principle involves ignoring that, while the Saudis are “desperate to portray this [their invasion of Yemen] as a counter to Iran”, and that is supposed to be the excuse for the aggression (legally, excuses for aggression are irrelevant and to be ignored), Russia would not be allowed to use “countering the US/NATO expansion” as a reason for supporting Ukrainian anti-coup democrats. That would be violating the US principle: you are not allowed to counter the terrorism of the US or its collaborators, such as the freedom-loving Saudi “royal” dictatorship. Thus Russian can have no involvement with eastern Ukrainian democrats, while the US can organize a terrorist army to destroy Syria, as it continues to do.

Trademark Jaw-Dropping US Hypocrisy On Display re Saudi Aggression vs. Russian “Aggression”

And this:

For all the talk of protecting state sovereignty, and ensuring regional stability and security, it is clear that different rules apply to different situations. The American endorsement of Saudi actions in Yemen must necessarily be counterposed against Saudi and American attempts to dislodge the Assad regime in Syria, as well as the opprobrium directed towards Russian intervention in Ukraine. While this should not be taken as sufficient reason to support either Assad or Russia, it is equally important to recognize how there is more than a whiff of cynicism around the platitudes currently being mouthed to justify the Saudi military campaign. As always, the conflict is one that is about politics rather than principle, with yet more lives being lost in the pursuit of imperial interests and regional hegemony; another pointless, unnecessary war fought by ‘powers’ that pay for it with the blood of those who have played no role in creating it.

Where angels fear to tread, The Nation

Good luck trying to find much comparison between the U.S.’ position on Yemen and Ukraine in most of the mainstream media this week. Let me know if you find anything.

Obama Admits: The US Invasion Spawned ISIL/ISIS/Daesh

If I said something like this on Facebook, I know for a fact certain folks (you know who you are) would attack me with comments like “oh here we go again, everything is always American’s fault”.

Well it looks like Obama agrees with those of us who have been saying for the last year that the US-lead invasion of Iraq in 2003 indirectly lead to the creation of Daesh. In this VICE NEWS interview, he says (at 11’50”):

“Two things: One is, ISIL is a direct outgrowth of Al-Qaeda in Iraq that grew out of our invasion, which is an example of unintended consequences, which is why we should generally aim before we shoot.”

That’s pretty bold for a sitting American President to admit. He continues to make sense:

What I’m worried about” he said, “is even if ISIL is defeated, the underlying problem of disaffected Sunnis around the world – but particularly in some of these areas including Libya, including Yemen – where a young man who’s growing up has no education, has no prospects for the future, is looking around and the one way he can get validation, power, respect, is if he’s a fighter.”

“That’s a problem we’re going to have, generally. And we can’t keep on thinking about counterterrorism and security as entirely separate from diplomacy, development, education.”

He goes on to talk about why it is in the best self-interests of the US to fund education in the Middle East. I agree. Unfortunately he didn’t go the final step and connect the US’ desire to control to oil of the Middle East, and it’s long history of interfering in the politics of the region to control that oil, with the rise if Sunni and Wahhabist extremism – but it was a good and surprising start.

But then he says legalisation of marijuana shouldn’t be young people’s top priority. Really? When the US has the world’s largest prison population and much of that is being driven by the drug laws? I definitely think legalisation of all drugs, not just marijuana, should be a top priority of American’s youth.