new york times

Glenn Greenwald Reminds Me That Actual Investigation Matters

In his most recent article, Greenwald correctly points out that if whistle-blowers do what these intelligence leaker did, Obama puts them in jail. He also points out that columnists at the NYT and Washington Post make careers out of repeating CIA and FBI anonymous sources without doing any journalistic investigation. 

Everyone should put their critical thinking hats on and understand there is a large percentage of Washington DC that does not want renewed relations with Russia. It flies in the face of the cold war they never stopped fighting and American hegemony abroad.
Greenwald already did his investigation on the evidence of Russian involvement still being peddled by the media back in January, when the sad excuse for an intelligence report came out.

Similarly reading actual journalism gives you the keen eye to smell bullshit.

Thomas Friedman Asks, Why Not Arm ISIS?

Thomas Friedman, the New York Times columnist who has more interest in selling the American people on Israeli policy than keeping them safe, suggested that we discuss the following question. Why should America fight another war for Iran in Iraq?

Now I despise ISIS as much as anyone, but let me just toss out a different question: Should we be arming ISIS? Or let me ask that differently: Why are we, for the third time since 9/11, fighting a war on behalf of Iran?

In 2002, we destroyed Iran’s main Sunni foe in Afghanistan (the Taliban regime). In 2003, we destroyed Iran’s main Sunni foe in the Arab world (Saddam Hussein). But because we failed to erect a self-sustaining pluralistic order, which could have been a durable counterbalance to Iran, we created a vacuum in both Iraq and the wider Sunni Arab world. That is why Tehran’s proxies now indirectly dominate four Arab capitals: Beirut, Damascus, Sana and Baghdad.

ISIS, with all its awfulness, emerged as the homegrown Sunni Arab response to this crushing defeat of Sunni Arabism — mixing old pro-Saddam Baathists with medieval Sunni religious fanatics with a collection of ideologues, misfits and adventure-seekers from around the Sunni Muslim world. Obviously, I abhor ISIS and don’t want to see it spread or take over Iraq. I simply raise this question rhetorically because no one else is: Why is it in our interest to destroy the last Sunni bulwark to a total Iranian takeover of Iraq? Because the Shiite militias now leading the fight against ISIS will rule better? Really?

Source

Simple answer to this is, America shouldn’t.

But Friedman doesn’t want to NOT fight a war, he just fears Shite Iran running Iraq. Why? Because this is what the Israel state fears. Instead, like major players in Israel, Mr. Friedman wants us to ponder the idea of supplying ISIS (Al Qeada) with weapons to fight against the Shites. Israel is already providing medical aid to Syrian rebel fighters sworn to Jaba Al Nusra, Al Qeada’s wing in Syria. The lesser of two evils for Israel is having unorganized Sunni groups running rough-shot over the countryside. Thomas Friedman thinks you should agree.

NYT: CIA Funds to Corrupt Afghan Government End Up In Al Qaeda Pockets

In the spring of 2010, Afghan officials struck a deal to free an Afghan diplomat held hostage by Al Qaeda. But the price was steep — $5 million — and senior security officials were scrambling to come up with the money.

They first turned to a secret fund that theCentral Intelligence Agency bankrolled with monthly cash deliveries to the presidential palace in Kabul, according to several Afghan officials involved in the episode. The Afghan government, they said, had already squirreled away about $1 million from that fund.

Within weeks, that money and $4 million more provided from other countries was handed over to Al Qaeda, replenishing its coffers after a relentless C.I.A. campaign of drone strikes in Pakistan had decimated the militant network’s upper ranks.

Source

That Awkward Moment When the New York Times Admits Insurance Companies Made Out like Bandits with Obamacare

This article explains exactly how Corporatism works. Not free market Capitalism as it will argued by many. The co-mingling of government and private industry always creates a relationship that will run on momentum and vested interests.

…since the Affordable Care Act was enacted in 2010, the relationship between the Obama administration and insurers has evolved into a powerful, mutually beneficial partnership that has been a boon to the nation’s largest private health plans and led to a profitable surge in theirMedicaid enrollment.

The insurers in turn have provided crucial support to Mr. Obama in court battles over the health care law, including a case now before the Supreme Court challenging the federal subsidies paid to insurance companies on behalf of low- and moderate-income consumers. Last fall, a unit of one of the nation’s largest insurers, UnitedHealth Group, helped the administration repair the HealthCare.gov website after it crashed in the opening days of enrollment.

“Insurers and the government have developed a symbiotic relationship, nurtured by tens of billions of dollars that flow from the federal Treasury to insurers each year,” said Michael F. Cannon, director of health policy studies at the libertarian Cato Institute.

So much so, in fact, that insurers may soon be on a collision course with the Republican majority in the new Congress. Insurers, often aligned with Republicans in the past, have built their business plans around the law and will strenuously resist Republican efforts to dismantle it. Since Mr. Obama signed the law, share prices for four of the major insurance companies — Aetna, Cigna, Humana and UnitedHealth — have more than doubled, while the Standard & Poor’s 500-stock index has increased about 70 percent.

“These companies all look at government programs as growth markets,” said Michael J. Tuffin, a former executive vice president of America’s Health Insurance Plans, the main lobby for the industry. “There will be nearly $2 trillion of subsidized coverage through insurance exchanges and Medicaid over the next 10 years. These are pragmatic companies. They will follow the customer.”

The relationship is expected only to deepen as the two sides grow more intertwined.

Source