THE ABSURD TIMES

What we are all about:

Seems to fit:

Palestine: just a reminder

Trump the Vulgar

So, what does vulgar mean?  It does not mean swear words.  What we have in mind is something between that and what the original term "Vulgate" meant when books were published in languages other than Latin so the "common" people could read them. 

Our President gave the most vulgar speech by a U.S. President in the history of the United Nations.  At the time, we simply stated: "Friends, Delegates, and Heads of State.  Lend me your ears!  He doth not speak for me nor doth he in my manner, this man of Orange."  That is enough.

Someone very prescient suggested that, instead of the National Anthem, which was made a tradition in football in 2009, perhaps a stirring rendition of the Bill of Rights would be appropriate:  At least a summary of some of the key points.  That is what it is all about, anyway.

Once in high school several of us were sent to the discipline office, run by the Vice Principal, who had also been my baseball coach.  Since the idea was to investigate a lack of patriotism, we were asked why we did not sing it.  Several answers where: 1) the range is too wide and I can not hit all of those notes, 2) it is scored in the key of X but was played in Y, and 3), mine, "it is one long rhetorical question to which the only logical answer is 'no'."  After he thought a bit about that, he said all we had to do was mouth the words and "fake it".  I started to protest, but he stopped me immediately, saying, "Hold on, I know you are very good at faking hitters out and you can at least fake out the monitor there."  That was the end of that. 

Have we officially recognized Global Warming yet?

North Korea in protest called our President a "dotard," leading to the intense online search for definitions by the U.S. citizenry.  The BBC immediately knew that it meant and how to pronounce it (showoffs) and the major U.S. Networks caught on in a matter of hours.  I pointed out that it "does not rhyme with not!  That seemed to help.

Someone mentioned that, thus, North Korea has done more to advance American literacy than Betsy Devoss (our Secretary of Education and sister of Blackwater owner).  It is said that she had something to do with not shooting bears near a high school and has also made it easier for college guys to rape people, it seems.

Much has been made of Putin interfering with the election.  Well, yes, what do you expect?  He had no desire to see Clinton elected and was able to screw up the U.S. well with Trump.  What would you expect?  He's happy.  And if you are so upset with the hacking of Podesta's e-mails, his account was on AOL and his password was PASSWORD.  He had also been warned ahead of time by the FBI.  We have not yet decided which was more disturbing, AOL or the lousy password.  Also, much has been said about Russia spending 100K on Facebook Ads.  What a huge sum compared to donations given to Trump by Billionaires.  Why, it almost amounts to 20 seconds of their earned income.  Many who voted for Trump in the key states (Wisconsin, Michigan, and even Pennsylvania), had voted for Obama in 2008.  This was not the case with his "base".

Nuclear disarmament in Korea?  I think that the lesson of Saddam and Gaddafi will make North Korea think twice, if even once.  Even if we think we can easily shoot down one of the armed missiles, they could rig it so that it would explode prior to impact emitting an Electromagnetic pulse that would fry a great deal of electronic equipment on the west coast.  Well, before you dismiss the idea, remember that Trump lost the entire west coast in the last election.

You may wish to reflect upon the last great international nuclear crisis, the Cuban missile crisis.  At that time, the opposing leaders were Mikita Kruschev (who survived Stalin and became leader of the Soviet Union) and JFK to be remember forever.  Today we have a 32 year old kid who kills his Uncles, brothers, and whomever to stay in power and who never led a country and our President whose governmental service is limited to what we have seen since the inauguration, a dotard.  Things look grim indeed.

One final observation before we leave you with a very apt discussion of the NFL v. Trump, who obviously does not know what "Mother" means to many of these players, as he does not understand their culture.  Colin's (#7) mother tweeted:  "Guess that makes me a proud 'bitch'." 

From Democracy Now:

In the biggest display of athletic defiance in years, football teams across the nation protested President Donald Trump after he attacked the NFL, NBA and some of their most popular athletes for daring to draw attention to racism and police violence. We look at the unprecedented role of political activism among athletes under the Trump presidency and the politics of playing the national anthem at games. We speak with Dr. Harry Edwards, professor emeritus of sociology at the University of California, Berkeley, and the author of several books, including "The Revolt of the Black Athlete," reissued this year for its 50th anniversary edition. He was the architect of the 1968 Olympic Project for Human Rights and is a longtime staff consultant with the San Francisco 49ers. We're also joined by Dave Zirin, sports editor for The Nation magazine, who notes that playing the national anthem before games has a long and hallowed history that goes back to the days of "Jersey Shore" and Justin Bieber.

---

Transcript

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.

AMY GOODMAN: In the biggest display of athletic defiance for decades, football teams across the nation protested President Donald Trump after he attacked the NFL, NBAand some of their most popular athletes for daring to draw attention to racism and police violence by taking the knee during the national anthem. At a campaign rally in Huntsville, Alabama, Friday evening, Trump lashed out at players who have joined this growing protest movement, that, well, in its latest incarnation was started by the former 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick, against racial injustice, kneeling during the national anthem. Trump made the comments while stumping for Senator Luther Strange to replace Jeff Sessions in a close Republican primary in Alabama.

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: Wouldn't you love to see one of these NFL owners, when somebody disrespects our flag, to say, "Get that son of a bitch off the field right now. Out. He's fired. He's fired!"? Wouldn't you love it?

AUDIENCE: U.S.A.! U.S.A.! U.S.A.! U.S.A.! U.S.A.!

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: You know, some owner is going to do that. He's going to say, "That guy that disrespects our flag, he's fired." And that owner—they don't know it. They don't know. They're friends of mine, many of them. They don't know. They'll be the most popular person for a week. They'll be the most popular person in this country, because that's a total disrespect of our heritage. That's a total disrespect of everything that we stand for, OK?

AMY GOODMAN: Trump's speech took place in the city of Huntsville, a couple hours from where Alabama's Governor George Wallace openly embraced segregation in his 1963 inaugural address. During his remarks, Trump urged football fans to turn off their TVs when athletes protest during the national anthem.

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: But you know what's hurting the game more than that? When people like yourselves turn on television and you see those people taking the knee when they're playing our great national anthem.

AUDIENCE: Boo!

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: The only thing you could do better is if you see it, even if it's one player, leave the stadium. I guarantee, things will stop. Things will stop. Just pick up and leave. Pick up and leave.

AMY GOODMAN: Trump's comments come immediately—well, Trump's comments immediately drew outrage and criticism. NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell said in a statement, quote, "Divisive comments like these demonstrate an unfortunate lack of respect." The NFL Players Association President Eric Winston said Trump's comments were, quote, "a slap in the face to the civil rights heroes of the past and present." Former NFL wide receiver Anquan Boldin told ABC News he and other athletes are concerned about Trump's "hate speech."

ANQUAN BOLDIN: I think the president's words are real divisive. I don't like the hate speech that is coming out of his mouth. Neither do the players in the locker room. So, I think, as a league, we need to stand together and show that we're all about uniting one another and not the divisive rhetoric that's coming out of the mouth of the president.

AMY GOODMAN: Ahead of a series of NFL games Sunday, Trump again urged football fans to boycott NFL games unless clubs punish players who protest during the national anthem. He tweeted, "If NFL fans refuse to go to games until players stop disrespecting our Flag & Country, you will see change take place fast. Fire or suspend! NFLattendance and ratings are WAY DOWN. Boring games yes, but many stay away because they love our country. League should back U.S."

Trump's comments sparked nationwide protests, with players on most teams participating in some form of protest ahead of Sunday games. NFL players who kneeled and locked arms during the national anthem included members of the Buffalo Bills, Denver Broncos, New Orleans Saints, Miami Dolphins, Tampa Bay Buccaneers, Cleveland Browns, Philadelphia Eagles, New York Giants. Super Bowl champions New England Patriots also protested, with white quarterback Tom Brady interlocking arms with teammates of color as others kneeled. Several players and staff from the Jacksonville Jaguars and Baltimore Ravens also knelt in defiance [ahead] of a game in London. Journalist Shaun King noted 27 players and staff from both teams participated in the protest, making it the "most ever in one game," he wrote. And nearly the entire Pittsburgh Steelers team sat out the national anthem in the locker room ahead of their game against the Chicago Bears, who stood on the sidelines with their arms locked in solidarity.

Meanwhile, during game one of the WNBA Finals, the Lynx linked arms during the national anthem, while the Sparks stayed in their locker room.

The protests spread to baseball teams, as well, with the Oakland Athletics' Bruce Maxwell becoming the first Major League player to kneel during the national anthem, on Saturday night. Maxwell was born on an Army base; his father is in the military. He told reporters he was, quote, "kneeling for people that don't have a voice."

And on Saturday, legendary musician Stevie Wonder joined protesting athletes by kneeling on stage before his performance at the Global Citizen Festival.

Meanwhile, Trump also took aim at the NBA, rescinding an invitation to basketball champions the Golden State Warriors to visit the White House, after the team's star player, Steph Curry, said he would not attend. Curry told reporters he and some of his teammates disagree with Trump and, quote, "the things that he's said and the things that he hasn't said in the right times." In response, Trump tweeted, quote, "Going to the White House is considered a great honor for a championship team. Stephen Curry is hesitating, therefore invitation is withdrawn!" This is Curry responding to Trump's Twitter attack.

STEPHEN CURRY: It's kind of, I mean, surreal, to be honest. I mean, just I don't know why he feels the need to target certain individuals, you know, rather than others. I have an idea of why, but it's kind of—it's just kind of beneath, I think, a leader of a country to go that route. It's not what leaders do. So, like I said, we have amazing people in this league that have spoken up on both sides of the conversation. The amount of support and encouragement I saw this morning around the league was unbelievable, from all types of players.

AMY GOODMAN: The Golden State Warriors say they'll visit Washington, D.C., but skip the White House and instead, quote, "celebrate equality, diversity and inclusion," unquote. Trump's tweet also drew a sharp rebuke from NBA superstar LeBron James, one of the nation's best-known athletes. He tweeted at Trump, quote, "U bum @StephenCurry30 already said he ain't going! So therefore ain't no invite. Going to White House was a great honor until you showed up!" James posted this video on his Instagram account on Saturday. As of Sunday evening, it had been viewed over 2 million times.

LEBRON JAMES: You look at him kind of asking, you know, the NFL owners to get rid of players off the field because they're exercising their rights, and that's not right. And then, you know, when I wake up, I see that a colleague of mine has been uninvited—of something that he said he didn't even want to go to in the first place—you know, to the White House. You know, that's just something I can't stand for, man. And we've got, you know, Jemele Hill and Colin Kaepernick, and, you know, all these people are speaking up, and it's for the greater cause. It's for us to all come together. It's not about a division. It's not about dividing. We, as American people, need to actually just come together even more stronger, man, because this is a very critical time. And me being in the position I am, I had to voice this to y'all. So, love y'all, man.

AMY GOODMAN: Basketball star LeBron James. Meanwhile, Sunday, even some of the anthem singers participated in the protests during the NFL games. In Motown, before the Lions game at Ford Field, singer Rico Lavelle performed "The Star-Spangled Banner," pausing between "home of the" and "brave" to drop to his right knee and raise his left hand in a fist, a move that recalled the Black Power salute of U.S. Olympians John Carlos and Tommie Smith at the 1968 Olympic Games in Mexico City.

RICO LAVELLE: [singing] For the land of the free and the home of the brave.

AMY GOODMAN: When we come back from break, we'll be joined by three guests: Dr. Harry Edwards, professor emeritus of sociology, University of California, Berkeley, adviser to Colin Kaepernick; we'll also be speaking with sportswriter Dave Zirin; and we'll be speaking with former NFL star Donté Stallworth. This is Democracy Now! Back in a minute.

[break]

AMY GOODMAN: That's Stevie Wonder performing Saturday night at the Global Citizen concert in Central Park. That was after he took both knees, as he said it, for America and for the world. This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, The War and Peace Report. I'm Amy Goodman.

In the biggest display of athletic defiance in years, sports teams across the nation—football, baseball and basketball—protested President Donald Trump after he attacked the NFL, the NBA and some of their most popular athletes for daring to draw attention to racism and police violence.

We go now to get response. We're joined by three people. In Palo Alto, California, we're joined by Dr. Harry Edwards, professor emeritus of sociology at University of California, Berkeley, author of a number of books, including The Revolt of the Black Athlete, reissued this year for its 50th anniversary edition. He was the architect of the 1968 Olympic Project for Human Rights, longtime staff consultant with the San Francisco 49ers, where he worked with Colin Kaepernick. In Washington, D.C., we're joined by Donté Stallworth, a sports commentator, former NFL player who spent 10 years in the league. And also with us, Dave Zirin, a sports editor for The Nation magazine. His latest piece, "For the NFL, It was 'Choose Your Side Sunday.'"

We welcome you all to Democracy Now! Harry Edwards, let's begin with you. Have you seen anything like this, in one day, yesterday, what happened across this country and beyond?

HARRY EDWARDS: Oh, absolutely not. I mean, in the 1960s, you had pockets of athletes who were engaged in political activities, some of the greatest sports personalities in the history of this country, but there was nothing on this scale. Mr. Trump has managed to precipitate something that all of us, activists and intellectuals and media types, would never have been able to achieve, through his ignorance, impulsiveness and vindictiveness. And so, what he has done—if anybody is leading this movement, it's Mr. Trump. He has done more to put it on track and to move it forward than any other individual in history.

AMY GOODMAN: I mean, President Trump has managed to do something that hasn't happened in quite a while, like Roger Goodell, the head of the NFL, being united with players? Talk about the response of the predominantly almost all-white coaches, the staff and the players. Describe what we saw yesterday, from game to game, whether the players stayed back in the locker room for the anthem or went down on knee or locked arms, like Tom Brady, not usually seen in solidarity in this way, who talked about President Trump as being disrespectful.

HARRY EDWARDS: Well, Mr. Trump, first of all, threw the owners under the bus. The owners, who had been supporting him, all of a sudden had to choose between him—and the alt-right and that cheap applause that he got in Alabama—and their own players. And they knew, from the moment that he made those statements, if they didn't stand up on the right side of these issues and join their players, they've signed their last free agent, they probably would have a great deal of difficulty signing their draft choices, and they would have tremendous problems in their locker room because of the perception of what the owner stood for who took Mr. Trump's advice.

Again, this demonstrates Mr. Trump's utter ignorance of the dynamics of athletics in this country, particularly at the elite levels, what holds teams together, what motivates them and what they consider to be important and critical in terms of their own involvement in this great American sports institution. So, again, like in almost every other area that he has entered, he shows an abysmal ignorance of what is important, what's going on, and he doesn't hesitate to throw even his closest associates and supporters under the bus.

And I will say something else: We haven't heard the last of him in the sports arena. And so, we had better prepare ourselves to respond objectively, collectively, in unity, because, going forward, he's going to continue this vindictive tirade that he's been on.

AMY GOODMAN: I wanted to turn to the former NFL head coach, like head of the New York Jets, Rex Ryan, well-known Trump supporter. Speaking Sunday on ESPN, Ryan blasted Trump for his criticism of NFL players, saying he's appalled by Trump's comments.

REX RYAN: Like I'm [bleep] off. I'll be honest with you, you know, because I supported Donald Trump. You know, I sat back, and when he asked me to introduce him at a rally, you know, in Buffalo, I did that. But I'm reading these comments, and it's appalling to me. And I'm sure it's appalling to almost any citizen in our country. It should be. I mean, you know, calling our players SOBs and all that kind of stuff? That's not the—that's not the men that I know. The men that I know in the locker room, I'm proud of. I'm proud to be associated with those people. And it's just so—you know, I apologize for being [bleep] off, but guess what. That's it. Because, right away, I'm associated with what Donald Trump stands for and all that, because, you know, I introduced him. I never signed up for that. I never wanted that.

AMY GOODMAN: Dave Zirin, you've been covering sports and protest for a long time. Describe everything that we saw yesterday. I mean, we're not only talking about the NFL—NBA, cheerleaders, the actual anthem singers themselves, WNBA, as well, women's basketball.

DAVE ZIRIN: Yeah. And first and foremost, Amy, I just want to say what an honor it is to do this show with Dr. Harry Edwards. It's impossible—he said it's impossible to think about this moment happening without Donald Trump. I think it's impossible to see this moment happening without the work of Dr. Harry Edwards over the last five decades.

I will say this. Donald Trump thought he knew what he was doing in Huntsville, Alabama. He has a tremendous ability to speak to the worst instincts of his audience. And I'm sure, in his lizard brain, he looked at that audience of senior—white senior citizens' council in Alabama and said to himself, "You know what? I think that going after young black men will be a big win." And that's what he does. He goes after people of color. He goes after women. He goes after people that his base will celebrate their destruction.

And yet, what he did not understand, maybe because he never played the game of football, he did not understand that in football locker rooms they have what Seattle Seahawk Michael Bennett calls a brotherhood. And "brotherhood" could be seen as another word for solidarity. And it's kind of like a Spartacus thing, like "an injury to one is an injury to all" kind of thing.

And so, you think about what Donald Trump said at that rally and what NFL players and owners heard. You've got to take in the whole thing of what he said. First and foremost, he called the players SOBs, and he used the B-word. And that's going after players' mothers, and you just do not do that. Second, he went after their livelihoods, saying that they should be fired. Third of all, he went after their freedoms, their right to dissent.

And it also has to be said that Donald Trump, because he doesn't know the game, did not understand that the players who have been dissenting—and I'm talking about people like Malcolm Jenkins, Michael Bennett—they're not just individuals, they're not just people who are sitting during the anthem, they are people who are considered leaders in locker rooms, the most respected people in the National Football League. So he's going after people who a lot of these coaches love. They love having these guys in their locker room, because they're some of the most thoughtful people that they have.

And so, what Donald Trump spurred is remarkable. And I'd be remiss, Amy, if I did not read for your audience, just so people know how deep the politics of what we saw Sunday was, the statement made by the Seattle Seahawks in their refusal to come out for the national anthem. It's brief, and it's worth reading. This is what they said. They said, "We will not stand for the injustice that has plagued people of color in this country. Out of love for our country and in honor of the sacrifices made on our behalf, we unite to oppose those that would deny our most basic freedoms. We remain committed in continuing to work towards equality and justice for all." We have reached a point where protesting the anthem is an act that actually demands more unity than whatever it is that Donald Trump is saying from his bully pulpit.

AMY GOODMAN: I wanted to go to Michael Bennett himself, a Seattle Seahawk, NFLstar, appeared on Democracy Now! a few months ago, and I asked him about NFLquarterback Colin Kaepernick's decision to protest against racial oppression and police brutality by taking the knee during the pregame national anthem.

MICHAEL BENNETT: When he took that knee, it just—it just made me realize that, you know, when he did that and the way that he touched—made people speak around the world about this, it was like, "Wow! Athletes really do have this platform that a lot of people just want to hear." And when he made that decision to do that, I think it changed a lot of lives. I think it brought out some ugliness in people, but it also brought out some beauty in some people. And I think, for us, for me personally, it just challenged me to be—to even, you know, join him and try to make it—try to make everything in his message more—make it where people understand and they want to be a part of it, where young kids are speaking about it, too.

AMY GOODMAN: So that's Seattle Seahawk Michael Bennett speaking to us in February. Now, Dave Zirin, I wanted to ask you about the history of the playing of the national anthem. It wasn't always like this, was it? Weren't the teams usually in their locker rooms? Did this have to do with payment that the Pentagon made to the NFL to start recruiting more people, because young people watch football?

DAVE ZIRIN: Oh, Amy, playing the national anthem and having the teams line up before games, it has a long and hallowed history that goes back to the days of Jersey Shoreand Justin Bieber. I mean, we're talking 2009. I mean, Fast & Furious 4 came out in 2009. That's how long players have lined up for the anthem. And, yes, it comes out of a partnership between the Department of Defense and the National Football League. Everything you see at games, for years, until it was uncovered by Senator Jeff Flake from Arizona, everything you saw for years, like—

AMY GOODMAN: And John McCain, right?

DAVE ZIRIN: And John McCain, yes. And showing it in like—showing like the salute to the troop moment and all of these spectacles, they really were about recruitment for the armed forces, and they pay tens of millions of dollars to the National Football League to do these kinds of events, which speaks to, I think, this partnership that exists and how patriotism exists in these events. This is not some long tradition. I mean, this is something that's a very short tradition and one that was absolutely geared with post-9/11 war-on-terror concern about the recruitment levels for the armed forces and seeing the NFL as a way to shore up those numbers, and paying billionaires money to make this a reality. And, yes, this was only—this was something also that was hidden. It was discovered by the investigation of those Arizona senators. And I think that sort of gives the game away as far as what all this is about. I mean, Trump speaks about it as if it is this kind of long, hallowed tradition of players standing at attention for the anthem, when it's actually something very recent and very, I think, just monetary, in terms of the NFL's perspective.

HARRY EDWARDS: But—

AMY GOODMAN: Was that Harry Edwards?

HARRY EDWARDS: But, you know, the—uh-huh.

AMY GOODMAN: Go ahead.

HARRY EDWARDS: But, you know, it's not about the anthem.

DAVE ZIRIN: Yes.

HARRY EDWARDS: This is the part that we don't want to get hung up on. What Colin did was not an attack on the anthem. It was not an attack on the military. It was not even an attack on police. It was an attack on injustice. And he was no more against the anthem than he was against the soldiers who are in Afghanistan and in Iraq. And so, we don't want to get too tied up on the anthem and its place in sports and so forth. We want to look at the issues. Anything else is a red herring. That is what Colin was about. It's not even about Colin getting a quarterback job again. That's like saying that we should—that Montgomery—the Montgomery bus boycott movement should have been about Rosa Parks getting her seat back. It has to be about things much broader than that. And so, we want to understand the history and dynamics of the politics of the national anthem and how they're being played by people such as Trump, but we don't want to lose sight about what this struggle is about. It's about injustice in American society.

DAVE ZIRIN: Absolutely.

AMY GOODMAN: Dr. Harry Edwards, you are certainly speaking from personal experience. You're an adviser to Colin Kaepernick. And for people who haven't been following the whole controversy around him, after he first took the knee as a 49ers star, now not being able to get a job—I mean, I'm talking to you from New York, where a thousand people came out protesting outside of NFL headquarters. Talk about Colin's response right now to what we're seeing, the mass protests across the country.

HARRY EDWARDS: Colin Kaepernick is getting ready to play football. I think that that has been his commitment. All of this discussion about whether he wants to play—"Geez, is he willing to offer an apology?" An apology for what? He plays football. He is an activist in the struggle for human rights and justice in American society. Those two things are not contradictory. And so, this notion that perhaps he doesn't want to play anymore, perhaps he wants to be a civil rights leader instead, I mean, those two things are not contradictory.

So, a lot of that is simply rationalization for a reactionary culture, where owners, for whatever reason, are reluctant to give Colin Kaepernick the opportunity to play. The very idea that there are 96 quarterbacks in this league, including 32 clipboard holders, who are so much better than Colin Kaepernick, who took his team to three conference championships and a Super Bowl, that they are so much better than Colin Kaepernick, that he does not even deserve a chance for a tryout, is ludicrous. This is something that the league, along with siding with their players, within the very near future, is going to have to correct. Colin Kaepernick belongs at least on the field holding a clipboard. You can't make any other argument, especially given some of the performances that have shown up in the first three weeks by quarterbacks in this league. So, that's a challenge that the league is still confronted with. But what Colin Kaepernick is doing is preparing to play football, because that's one of the things that he does.

The original content of this program is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License. Please attribute legal copies of this work to democracynow.org. Some of the work(s) that this program incorporates, however, may be separately licensed. For further information or additional permissions, contact us.

Putin, Hacking, Trump, and Democratic Priorities

THE ABSURD TIMES

Illustration: Latuff.  Here just because it is.  We seem to have forgotten about Palestine.

One of the more unfortunate results of this election, along with the alledged Russian "hacks," (perhaps "Leaks" would be a more precise word), is that one informed and sane "Liberals" and even "Progressives" feel free now to lash out not at the DNC and the way it ran the last election, but to instead turn their ire towards Assad and Putin.  Moreover, they can feel nice and patriotic about it at the same time.  

Facts are is short supply concerning the recent events in Aleppo, but we were first told that it was Al-Nusra that had held Aleppo, evil terrorists.  Now, all of a sudden, it is bold and brave "Rebels," a term that conjures thoughts of our war of independence for England in the 18^th century.  Now, poor helpless rebels, or innocent civilians (we invaded Libya to save "innocent civilians, remember?) are being tortured to death.  Oops, now they gave up and are being evacuated by international groups.

Palmyra just fell to ISIS, again.  How?  Well, they gave up on Mosul in Iraq and went there.  We could have knocked them out, but decided not to.

We have already discussed the Russians, the culturally and ethnically Russian citizens in Crimea who were, really, liberated and allowed to join the Russian Federation.   Anyone who felt out of place was allowed to leave with everything intact.  About 10 to 20% did. 

We have been though all of this, endlessly, before.  (See back issues of the past few years about it.)  The major point is that now that the idiot Trump is President Elect, Democrats feel free to attack Putin since, if you believe them, Putin got Trump elected! 

Trump has now gone on to appoint all sorts to vile characters to his cabinet.  The only good thing about all of this is that, just as the Republicans rebuilt their party along more sane policies, the Democrats have the same possibility.  If they listen to Sanders, Ellison, Warren, and a few others, the have a chance to become once again a Democratic party, not a semi-Republican one as it is now.  They need to look to themselves and let Trump and his gang worry about Putin.  Also, they need to present a united force against any attacks against social programs, "entitlements," which are actually necessities and, if the people are not entitled to them, why call them that?  There is where the party needs to focus. 

With the aid of Russian airstrikes, Syria has taken near full control of the city of Aleppo in a major defeat for forces hoping to topple Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. Before fighting began in 2012, Aleppo was Syria's largest city with a population of over 2 million. Some of the first major peaceful protests against Assad's rule broke out in Aleppo in March 2011. But today the city is in shambles after four years of fighting between Syria and rebel groups. A turning point in the battle of Aleppo occurred in September 2015, when Russia began carrying out airstrikes to aid the Syrian government. Russia described the fall of Aleppo as a victory against terrorists and jihadists. But the United States has decried the Russian-backed offensive. We host a debate between Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch, and Stephen Cohen, professor emeritus of Russian studies and politics at New York University and Princeton University.

---

TRANSCRIPT

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.

AMY GOODMAN: With the aid of Russian airstrikes, Syria has taken near full control of the city of Aleppo in a major defeat for forces hoping to topple Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. Before fighting began in 2012, Aleppo was Syria's largest city, with a population of over 2 million. Some of the first major peaceful protests against Assad's rule broke out in Aleppo in March 2011. But today the city is in shambles, after four years of fighting between Syria and rebel groups. A turning point in the battle of Aleppo occurred in September 2015, when Russia began carrying out airstrikes to aid the Syrian government. Negotiations are now ongoing for a truce to allow the evacuation of civilians living in the areas once held by rebel forces. An initial truce collapsed earlier today. Ismail Alabdullah, a volunteer with the Syrian Civil Defense, or White Helmets, said civilians had been executed by government forces.

ISMAIL ALABDULLAH: When Assad's forces captured al-Bustan al-Qasr neighborhood and al-Fardos neighborhood, Assad's forces, when they entered—when they entered these neighborhoods, they executed 82 people. And the relatives of the victims, who are now with us, told us they were executed, including like 13 kids and seven women. All of them were executed. And what we are now—and what we worry about, about our [inaudible], that maybe the genocide—that genocide will happen in the coming days, if nothing will stop them in the coming hours.

AMY GOODMAN: Russia described the fall of Aleppo as a victory against terrorists and jihadists, but the United States has decried the Russian-backed offensive. U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Samantha Power said, quote, "Aleppo will join the ranks of those events in world history that define modern evil, that stain our conscience decades later—Halabja, Rwanda, Srebrenica and now Aleppo," unquote. The U.N. said at least 82 civilians, including women and children, have been shot on sight by Syrian government troops in recent days.

To talk more about Syria, as well as how the fall of Aleppo impacts U.S.-Russian relations, we're joined by two guests. Kenneth Roth is with us, executive director of Human Rights Watch. His new article for The New York Review of Books is headlined "What Trump Should Do in Syria." And Stephen Cohen also joins us, professor emeritus of Russian studies and politics at New York University and Princeton University. He's a contributing editor at The Nation magazine.

Welcome, both, to Democracy Now! Ken Roth, let's begin with you. What's happened in Syria? And talk about Russia's role.

KENNETH ROTH: Well, we're all focused on Aleppo right now. And I think, as you mentioned earlier, Aleppo has been the victim of several months of siege, basically a starvation of everybody there, not simply the fighters, but up to 250,000 civilians. It also has been the victim of ongoing bombardment by Syrian and Russian forces. And what's notable about the way this war has been fought—and Aleppo is no exception to this—is that the Syrian-Russian combination have not simply aimed at fighters on the other side, which is what you're supposed to do in war, but they have deliberately targeted civilians and civilian institutions, like hospitals or markets and the like. And the aim is to make life so miserable that people either flee or the enclave ultimately topples. That's been this tactic in other areas, and now that has been successful in Aleppo. This is an overt war crime strategy, and it's been Assad's method of fighting the war from the outset. And Russia very much joined it, when, a little over year ago, in September 2015, it joined in. We had all hoped at that stage that the greater precision that Russian Air Force brought to the fighting would enable a more targeted approach. In fact, they just continued the policy of targeting civilians.

Now, we had hoped, as of last night, that for the remaining civilians in Aleppo—as well as the fighters, apparently—that there would be an evacuation. That had been arranged. But this morning, Shia militia, backed by Iran, blocked that deal and resumed shelling the area. This is of deep concern because, as you heard from the White Helmet individual, there have been executions in Aleppo when pro-government forces have entered. They, in particular, have been targeting the families of fighters. These are well known, and they're going door to door and executing women and children, as well as others who are there. So there's deep concern that if the people who remain in eastern Aleppo cannot get out, that they, too, may face these kinds of summary executions.

AMY GOODMAN: So, are you accusing Russia and Syria of war crimes here?

KENNETH ROTH: Absolutely. In other words, I mean, the fighters on the ground today are principally either Syrian or—I mean, the other major forces that have been backing Syria on the ground have been Iran and Hezbollah. Russia has been playing mainly an aerial role. But it—and often you can't tell which plane is which. You know, there are various efforts. But the combination of the Assad-Putin air forces have been deliberately bombing civilians and civilian institutions, time and time again. You speak to people in hospitals who report being targeted over and over again, until ultimately the hospital is destroyed. And this, you know, sadly, has been the strategy that Putin and Assad have pursued in Syria. This is a blatant war crime. The Geneva Conventions require that you take all feasible precautions to spare civilians. In this case, the deliberate purpose has been to target civilians. It's a blatant war crime.

AMY GOODMAN: Professor Stephen Cohen?

STEPHEN COHEN: Is anybody here old enough to remember the expression "fog of war"? I think it may have originated in World War I. I'm not sure. But then, when you get a war, you have a very difficult time getting reliable information about what's going on.

There are several narratives about the Syrian civil proxy war—and that's what it is, a lot of great powers, or would-be great powers, involved in Syria. The United States and Russia are involved in a proxy war there. It's a civil war. The account Mr. Roth just gave is only one of two or three competing narratives. One narrative is—and in war, innocents die. That's why we're all antiwar. He says that the Russians joined with the Syrians in deliberate war crimes. This is based on very selective reports that come from sources that cannot be verified. For example, the White Helmet man, that you had testify to this, didn't tell us how he knew that, how he observed it, how he escaped with his own life. Moreover, there are people who doubt the reports that come from the White Helmets, that they have an agenda. So the rest of us are left here trying to weigh the different narratives. Mr. Roth's is a very extreme set of accusations. What Samantha Power has said at the United Nations, over a long period of time, can't be taken at face value, because she has performed there not as an ambassador, but as a propagandist for a certain point of view.

The problem here is, is that what's the alternative to ending the siege of Aleppo? Now, you, Amy, Mr. Roth and The New York Times have dropped the word "jihadist" and "terrorist" from your narrative. I don't know if you're aware you've done that. You may have done this because The New York Times, until September—why was September important? Because President Obama had proposed to join with President Putin in what Mr. Roth now calls war crimes—that is, a military alliance against the people who are holding Aleppo captive. And they called them terrorists. When our Department of Defense sabotaged that potential Russian-American alliance in Aleppo, in Syria, suddenly the narrative—and we're back to the fog of war—changed. The New York Times, for example, and many of us who depend on the Times or The Washington Post for our information, suddenly changed their narrative. There were no longer any terrorists in Aleppo, no longer any jihadists, but people called rebels. And since our nation began in rebellion against Great Britain, rebels have a rather positive connotation. The reality is, I think—at least this is what the United States government told us until September—that terrorists were holding large parts of eastern Aleppo. They were not letting innocent civilians use the multiple corridors out of the city that the Russians—yes, there's plenty of testimony to this—had opened up and guaranteed, that people could not escape the city because of these terrorists. Then, suddenly, when the American-Russian—Obama's plan to cooperate with Putin there disappeared, apparently all the jihadists and the terrorists disappeared.

So we're left today in a fog of war. Perhaps Mr. Roth is correct, but I don't think he's fully correct. And we have two narratives. Either we have witnessed the liberation of Aleppo, and then we would say this is a good thing, or we're witnessing war crimes by the Russians and the Syrians in Aleppo, which is a bad thing. So, I would ask Mr. Roth: If the Russians hadn't done what he alleged they would do, what was the alternative to setting the people of Aleppo free?

AMY GOODMAN: Ken Roth?

KENNETH ROTH: Let me begin with this fog of war argument, because, you know, when there's nothing to say, when there's nothing to defend, let's resort to the fog of war. I mean, I've heard this argument many, many times. This is not fog of war. We know exactly what is going on. Human Rights Watch has teams on the ground, based in Beirut, occasionally going into Syria, in regular communication with people in Aleppo, in other places. We don't publish until we know exactly what is going on, until we corroborate and we're certain. So this is not a matter of just, you know, taking some jihadist propagandist and repeating it. We know exactly what is happening. And there is no question that the bombardment has been targeting civilians and civilian institutions. There is no question that the siege was starving everybody, including a quarter of a million civilians. So, you know, fog of war? Please. You know, this is the reality.

Now, what—you know, what could have been done? We speak about terrorists, and so let's get specific here. When people use that term, they generally refer to two groups. One is the Islamic State, or ISIS. ISIS is actually not in Aleppo at all. The U.S., working with its Kurdish allies, is fighting ISIS, you know, in Iraq around Mosul and in Syria around Raqqa. And Russia, for the most part, and Assad have largely been ignoring that fight. They've been focusing on Aleppo. Now, in Aleppo, there are what are known as sort of the moderate rebels, and then there's a group that the United States agrees is a terrorist, is an al-Qaeda affiliate—until very recently, when it supposedly distanced itself from al-Qaeda—traditionally known as Jabhat al-Nusra. The Jabhat al-Nusra forces are a relatively small component of the people in Aleppo, but the U.S. has agreed with Russia that it would like to see those people defeated.

Now, you know, however you feel about that, however you feel about the other rebels, the issue is—here, is not who wins. The issue is the method of warfare. And the right way to proceed is you shoot at the combatants on the other side. That's what the laws of war are all about. Unfortunately, Putin and Assad have chosen to target the civilians who also live there. It's a very deliberate strategy: make life so miserable that ultimately the city has no choice but to capitulate.

Now, you know, there is tremendous fear on the part of civilians in all of these enclaves who are targeted, and they—on the one hand, they fear staying there, because they're facing the bombardment by the Russian and the Syrian troops; on the other hand, they fear going over into Syrian hands, because, you know, we know what happens in Syrian prisons. We've seen extensive torture and execution. We have photos of, you know, thousands of people who have died in those prisons. And so, if you're a young man, for example, you basically are facing a choice: You know, do you either risk your life in Assad's detention facilities, or—you know, what they're increasingly doing is forcing you to just get into the Syrian military and go to the front line—you know, essentially a suicide mission there. So, it is, you know, a very poor possibility. Now, many families are staying with their relatives who are fighters, and these are the people who are being first targeted by the pro-government forces that are coming in. So, we are—you know, this is not about how do you defeat terrorists. This is about slaughter of civilians. And we should keep that focus.

AMY GOODMAN: Slaughter of civilians. The United Nations calls it a meltdown of humanity. Stephen Cohen?

STEPHEN COHEN: Well, the United Nations has issued conflicting reports. There's a bit of a struggle at the United Nations about what to say about all this.

Look, Mr. Roth's organization does God's work. No question about it. But for millennia, we've argued exactly what God's work is. One can support what Human Rights Watch does, with great enthusiasm, make a donation, urge Mr. Roth on, and still question his narrative. He has, he asserts, absolutely verifiable sources. The reality is, he doesn't. He criticizes me for saying fog of war, but there are other reports that have to be taken into account. The charge that Russia deliberately targets civilian facilities and centers is, of course, a part of the growing anti-Russian line that's captured our politics and has led to this scandal in Washington.

I think we need to step back for a minute. And I won't speak of my own involvement in human rights or civil liberties, because I'm older than both of you, and I would have you at a disadvantage, because I'm not sure you even remember these struggles—you do, but I'm not talking about only in the South, but in Russia and elsewhere. Putin said, prior to sending his Air Force to Syria, just over a year ago, in September 2015, I think—said it at the United Nations. He said it to President Obama. He said it at every press conference. During the period, three-year period, prior to that, the United States claimed it was fighting the Islamic State—and, of course, Mr. Roth is right: There are different terrorist groups fighting in Syria, some in Palmyra, some in Aleppo. During the three years the United States claimed to have been fighting the Islamic State, the Islamic State gained more and more and more territory, after the fall of Libya, or after we overthrew Gaddafi. It gained more territory in Iraq, and it gained an enormous territory in Syria. And something new emerged in the world: a terrorist organization that had actually turned itself into a real state. I mean, it was governing these territories, running municipal facilities, collecting taxes. This was something new and exceedingly dangerous.

So Putin said we have a choice: Who do we want in Damascus, the capital of Syria? Do we want Assad, the president of Syria, or do we want the Islamic State in Damascus? This was the key policy difference between the United States and Russia. The Obama had—administration had pursued, in fact, a policy of overthrowing Assad. Dealing with terrorists in Syria, some of whom we've funded, as Mr. Roth well knows, because they claimed to be anti-Assad, meant that, in fact, as we pursued the war against Assad, the Islamic State turned—took more and more territory. And Russia decided it had had enough, because it believed Syria was vital to its national security, and it intervened, and the war has been turned around. The United States has been on the wrong side of history from the beginning of this. The United States has made its contribution, since Vietnam, at least, to the destruction of hospitals and civilian facilities, most recently in Afghanistan. Was it deliberate? I don't know. It was probably an accident. In Mr. Roth's absolutist view, everything is certain, everything is deliberate. I'm more problematic.

But look what's happening in Syria today. It's extremely interesting. The Russians and the Syrians, some months ago, took back Palmyra, this historic city, where the Islamic State had been chopping off heads in public, where it had lined up its victims and had young children—looked to be about 10, 11, 12—execute them. I'm sure Human Rights Watch reported that and protested it. And then the Russians and the Syrians liberated the city. Now Palmyra is under siege again. The Islamic State may take control of the city. What is the United States doing about it? This is what we should be asking. This is our country now, not Russia.

AMY GOODMAN: Ken Roth, your response?

KENNETH ROTH: Well, I'm glad—

STEPHEN COHEN: Well, let—wait, let me finish my point. You filibustered. Let me just make my last point. He hasn't mentioned Mosul, by the way, and whether the same thing is happening in Mosul. The American-led—

KENNETH ROTH: I just mentioned that, yeah.

STEPHEN COHEN: One second, please. There are verifiable reports that jihadists in Mosul are fleeing, because of the Iraqi-American war there. Where are they going? They're going to Syria. The United States has bombers in that area. They could stop these people from going to Syria. They're headed, I would guess, toward Palmyra. Why is the United States allowing these jihadists, these terrorists, to go to Syria? Because, possibly, they want them to take back Palmyra from the Russians and the Syrians. Now, we don't know if that's true, but the American role is highly suspect.

And rather than sit here and say the Russians are committing war crimes—because, look, one person's war crime is another person's liberation. On the front page of The New York Times this very morning, there is a story by Anne Barnard—by the way, Americans are not filing from Syrian that; they're filing from Beirut, so they're depending on different sources. But she makes an interesting point. She repeats what Mr. Roth says, that—about people being executed by the Syrian Army. But she goes on to say these can't be verified. And then, two or three paragraphs later, she reports that people trapped in Aleppo are welcoming the Syrian Army with jubilation, she reports. So, even in The New York Times, which has not been very helpful in these narratives, you see the two narratives.

And undoubtedly, part of what Mr. Roth said is absolutely true. Part of it is part of the position that he has taken more generally about Russia being mainly responsible for virtually everything bad that's happening in the world. And I'll just end by saying that, in my judgment, the real threat to our national security at this moment, number one, is not unfolding in Syria, but in Washington, D.C.

AMY GOODMAN: Ken Roth?

KENNETH ROTH: Let's get back to reality here. The U.S. has been bombing ISIS in both Mosul and in Raqqa. You know, Professor Cohen says jihadists are fleeing Mosul. That was several weeks ago. You know, since then, it's actually been encircled, and so they're not fleeing. But there's no question that the U.S. is actively bombing in Iraq. It's backed by, you know, government forces and Kurdish forces on the ground. And in Syria, it's backed by predominantly Kurdish forces with a Syrian component to it. You know, that war seems to be progressing slowly.

If you look at what the Russian role in this has been, yes, you know, a year ago Russia retook Palmyra from ISIS. These days, it's been focusing entirely on Aleppo, where there is no ISIS. If you look at—there's a group called the Institute for the Study of War, which puts out very interesting maps, basically once a month, to show where the bombardment is. And so, they show the Russian bombardment. And you can see all these little explosives around Aleppo, and, you know, one or two around Raqqa or Palmyra. I have tweeted that on my Twitter account, if people want to find it. So, I mean, there's no question that the focus of Russia and Assad today has not been ISIS. They use the terrorist rhetoric, but they've been going after the opponents of the Assad regime.

Now, you know, that's their choice. For me, the issue is how they fight the war. Now, Professor Cohen says, oh, you know, I'm just making this up that they're targeting civilians. You know, look at the hospitals. They're a very good illustration. Until September 2015, you know, at a point where it was just the Syrian Air Force in the skies, they were using these so-called barrel bombs, which are very imprecise weapons. They're essentially canisters filled with explosives and shrapnel, which would tumble to earth—very difficult to target. Since the Russians entered the war, they've got precision weapons. And so, you talk to the doctors—and which I've done repeatedly—and they describe much more precise hits on the hospital. And this is not a mistake. This is over and over and over until the hospital is destroyed. There is no question that these hospitals are being deliberately targeted. You can say, "Oh, fog of war," but last time I checked, the only people in the sky over Aleppo are the Russians and the Syrians. There's no one else.

AMY GOODMAN: We're going to have to break, and then we're going to come back to this discussion and go to this issue that Professor Cohen has raised: Washington, the Russia-U.S. relationship. We're speaking with Professor Stephen Cohen, has taught Russian studies at both New York University and Princeton, now writes for The Nation, and Kenneth Roth, who's executive director of Human Rights Watch. Stay with us.

We turn now to take a broader look at U.S.-Russian relations in the wake of Donald Trump's election. On Tuesday, Trump officially nominated Rex Tillerson, chair and CEO of ExxonMobil, to be secretary of state. Tillerson is known to have close ties to Russian President Vladimir Putin, who awarded Tillerson the country's Order of Friendship decoration in 2013. One of the focuses of the Senate confirmation hearings will be Exxon's $500 billion oil exploration partnership with the Russian government's oil company, Rosneft. Considered the largest oil deal in history, the partnership can only go through if the U.S. lifts sanctions against Russia, which the Obama administration imposed over Russia's intervention in Ukraine. The news of Rex Tillerson's nomination came just days after the CIA accused Russia of meddling in the U.S. election to help Donald Trump win. Trump has rejected the CIA's conclusion, decrying it as "ridiculous." But President Obama ordered a review of Russia's role in influencing the presidential election. With us are Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch, and Stephen Cohen, professor emeritus of Russian studies and politics at New York University and Princeton University.

---

TRANSCRIPT

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.

AMY GOODMAN: We turn now to take a broader look at U.S.-Russian relations in the wake of Donald Trump's election. On Tuesday, Trump officially nominated Rex Tillerson, chair and CEO of ExxonMobil, to be secretary of state. Tillerson is known to have close ties to Russian President Vladimir Putin, who awarded Tillerson the country's Order of Friendship decoration in 2013. One of the focuses of the Senate confirmation hearings will be Exxon's $500 billion oil exploration partnership with the Russian government's oil company, Rosneft, considered the largest oil deal in history. The partnership can only go through if the U.S. lifts sanctions against Russia, which the Obama administration imposed over Russia's intervention in Ukraine.

The news of Tillerson's nomination came just days after the CIA accused Russia of meddling in the U.S. election to help Donald Trump win. Trump has rejected the CIA's conclusion, decrying it as "ridiculous." But President Obama ordered a review of Russia's role in influencing the presidential election.

Still with us, Kenneth Roth, who is executive director of Human Rights Watch, and Stephen Cohen, professor emeritus of Russian studies and politics at New York University and Princeton University.

Stephen Cohen, start with the elections.

STEPHEN COHEN: Be more precise.

AMY GOODMAN: What we understand, what the U.S. allegations are around Russian intervention in the elections. The New York Times today has a major top story.

STEPHEN COHEN: Yeah.

AMY GOODMAN: "Hacking the Democrats: How the Russia Honed Its Cyberpower and Trained It on an American Election."

STEPHEN COHEN: I don't know where to begin. Let me context it, because when we first—when you first had me on, February 2014, I said we were headed for a new Cold War with Russia, and it would be more dangerous than the last one. That has happened. We now have three Cold War fronts that are fraught with hot war, the possibility of hot war—the Baltic area, Ukraine and Syria—between two nuclear powers. Things are very, very dangerous.

We desperately need in this country a discussion of American policy toward Russia. We can't keep saying an untruth, that this new Cold War is solely the fault of Putin. We need to rethink our policy, at least over 20 years, but over the last five or six years, toward Russia. That has been made even more impossible now with this slurring of anybody who disagrees from the official American position of how the Cold War arose. The slurring began against people such as myself two or three years ago. We were called Putin apologists, Kremlin toadies, Kremlin clients. It moved on to even accuse Henry Kissinger of that. And then, of course, when Trump come along, this was a great blessing to these people, who are essentially neo-McCarthyites. It's spread to The New York Times.

So we have his allegation that the Russians deliberately—word Mr. Roth likes; I think there's more accident and miscalculation in history than he seems to think—deliberately, on the orders of Putin, hacked into the Democratic National Committee, and not only, in order to—and here the narrative gets a little puzzling. The original intention was simply to throw American democracy into chaos, cast disrepute on the American political system, but then they realized that they could actually throw the election to Trump. Now we have The New York Times, what used to be a newspaper we thought would protect us from these kinds of allegations, saying in an editorial that they did this, the Russians did this, because Trump is surrounded by Kremlin lackeys. This is an extremely serious and reckless allegation, that he's—our new president is surrounded by Kremlin lackeys. They don't name names, but we know how they mean—what they mean. And both the editorial page of the Timesand Paul Krugman, who, after all, won a Nobel Prize and once was my colleague at Princeton as an economist—it's really astonishing to see what he now writes—says that Trump won only because of what the Russians did. What we have from the CIA, which itself is divided—we know that there are different opinions in the CIA—we have yet to be presented with a single fact. In this New York Times story, which rehearses, basically, New York Times' miscoverage of this whole episode, they do the same thing. They are assessments, which is judgment. They are allegations. But no one has produced how they know this with facts. Did they tap into Russian cellphones? Do they have a mole in Putin's inner circle who's telling them? Do they have satellite surveillance? We don't know.

Let me bring to your attention something that's not been reported. There's a group of very serious former American intelligence officers called, I think, Veteran Intelligence Officers for Sanity. I'm not sure.

AMY GOODMAN: VIPS [Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity].

STEPHEN COHEN: You know them. And they issued a report yesterday. I can't judge it. I'm not an intelligence person in that sense. But they believe this wasn't hacking at all, but leaking, that somebody leaked this stuff from the Democratic—in other words, somebody in the United States. So, here we have no facts presented by the CIA. The FBI itself will not go along, because it's a fact organization. It's got to have evidence that's presentable in a court. We have the possibility—I don't know, but it's offered by credible people—that this wasn't hacking, but leaking. And the result is, we're having the new president called essentially a Kremlin lackey. Senator McCain has said, to his eternal discredit, that Putin is a bully, a liar, an invader of countries, a man who's determined to destroy the American way of life, and adds, if anybody doesn't agree with Senator McCain, he's a liar. So—

AMY GOODMAN: He also calls Putin a killer. Do you agree?

STEPHEN COHEN: A killer, a murderer. No, I do not. Well, I mean, killer, in warfare, yes. He didn't—oh, well, McCain went on to say that Putin had personally ordered the killing of Boris Nemtsov, a Russian opposition who was shot down on a bridge. No one in Moscow takes that seriously, not even Nemtsov's family. But the point we have here, Amy—and this is exceedingly dangerous—is that we have a new accepted practice of labeling anyone who dissents from American policy toward Russia as a Kremlin apologist. And I know very serious people who have become afraid to speak out now, because they don't want to be labeled.

AMY GOODMAN: So, let's get Kenneth Roth's response and also to the Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, House Speaker Paul Ryan—of course, both Republicans—announcing their support for an investigation into whether Russia did hack the elections.

KENNETH ROTH: Well, by all means, there should be an investigation. I mean, why not?

STEPHEN COHEN: Sure.

KENNETH ROTH: You've got to be very careful, though, when—you know, when there are accusations against Russia, and the response is "new Cold War," as if "Let's not look into this. Might be a new Cold War." You know, let's look at the reality here. In Syria—we've just discussed this—there has been Putin's involvement in the deliberate targeting of civilians. Ukraine, I mean, Amy, you had made a major faux pas by saying that Russia invaded Ukraine. You know, that was utterly denied by the Kremlin for a long time. It was the "little green men" in Crimea, until suddenly it was Russian forces. It was, you know, just a spontaneous uprising in eastern Ukraine, until suddenly there were Russian forces behind all that. So, you know, the truth is malleable when it's useful. And I think it's—we should be focusing on the reality.

Now, I have no special insight into the hacking allegations. By all means, there should be an investigation. And I do—I am concerned about Trump's nominee for secretary of state, because, you know, here is a guy, Rex Tillerson, who has had a career in cozying up to autocrats around the world, you know, in the name of Big Oil. And he has developed very good relations with Angola, with Equatorial Guinea and with Putin. And I worry about whether a man like that, who has put the interests of Big Oil ahead of everything else, is going to be able to pursue a foreign policy where, in theory, the promotion of human rights was a major part of it. One thing these autocrats all have in common is a general disregard for human rights. And is this the person we want in charge of our foreign policy?

AMY GOODMAN: And this issue of, if he is chosen, and Exxon's desire to have these sanctions lifted, the largest oil deal in not just U.S., but in world, history, if these sanctions are lifted, would benefit his company.

KENNETH ROTH: Well, now, clearly, ExxonMobil didn't like the sanctions that were imposed on Russia because of the adventurism of these "little green men" that have nothing to do with the Kremlin in eastern Ukraine. And ExxonMobil fought that. Now, this is, you know, not a human rights issue. It's not something that Human Rights Watch has taken a position on. But it does raise questions about, you know, what is the primary concern of Rex Tillerson. And can he really, after having spent his entire career at Big Oil, his entire career, professional life, at ExxonMobil, suddenly switch hats and pursue other values as the head of the State Department?

AMY GOODMAN: Then this issue that Professor Cohen raises of a new McCarthyism?

KENNETH ROTH: Well, that's another way of saying, you know, a new Cold War. You know, just because you start accusing people who say bad things about Putin of McCarthyism doesn't mean it's not true. I mean, you know, these big labels don't help. Let's look at the facts. You know, who actually did act in Ukraine? You know, was it really just a spontaneous uprising, or was there a Russian role in this? You know, who is providing the precision weapons in Syria that have been targeting civilians and civilian institutions? Nobody else has an air force like that other than Russia. Nobody even pretends that there are planes up there above Aleppo other than Russia, with their Syrian allies. So, you know, you've got to get down to the reality here. And I don't think throwing around these names of "new Cold War" or accusing people of McCarthyite tactics has anything to do with this. Let's get to the facts. And the facts are pretty ugly right now.

AMY GOODMAN: Very quickly, I presume, Professor Cohen, that you have some concerns about Donald Trump. Are any of them around his relationship with or the—the relationship with or his professed admiration for Putin?

STEPHEN COHEN: Well, I'm kind of startled by a number things that Mr. Roth said. And I don't like the way he dismisses everything I say as kind of a way of avoiding it by referring to a new Cold War and what happened in Ukraine. I don't think he really knows what happened in Ukraine, but that could be a separate discussion between us. And then he goes back to Syria. But what surprises me is, is that a man who represents human rights, one of which is freedom of speech, or, as Roosevelt would say, freedom of fear of speech, of being afraid to speak out, isn't worried about this new neo-McCarthyism and isn't on my side on this, that we should stop this. And he's kind of—and let me finish. He's kind of mangled it. I didn't say that anybody who says something bad about Putin is the target of this neo-McCarthyism. What I said was, anybody who dissents from the orthodox account of how we ended up in this new Cold War—and if Mr. Roth thinks it's not a new Cold War, he's welcome to that thought, though he'll miss all the attendant dangers. It's the people who speak out who are being called apologists for Putin, and it's chilling debate here. So let me make the point I began at the beginning.

AMY GOODMAN: We have 30 seconds.

STEPHEN COHEN: Only, and I can say it in 10. We're in the most dangerous confrontation with Russia since the Cuban missile crisis. It needs to be discussed. And at the moment, it can't be discussed because of these charges that everybody is a client of Putin who disagrees with the mainstream opinion. And it's coming from the Senate. It's coming from The New York Times. It's coming from—and I wish we had a second to say what the motives are. But one motive is to keep Trump from going to the White House. Another is to delegitimize him before he gets there. But the main motive—and you can hear it clearly—is Trump has said he wants cooperation with Russia, and the war party here that's against that is determined to stop it. And the way you do it is level against Putin the kinds of accusations that Mr. Roth uncritically levels, so the rest of us will say we can't have any cooperations with Putin because he's a war criminal.

AMY GOODMAN: Twenty seconds, Ken Roth.

KENNETH ROTH: Well, I'm all for talking with Putin, trying to cooperate with him. In fact, my New York Review piece argues that the key to Syria is for Trump to put pressure on Putin, because Assad wouldn't be able to commit these atrocities without Putin's active support. So, I'm—

STEPHEN COHEN: That's not talking with Putin; that's putting pressure on Putin.

KENNETH ROTH: And talk to him, too. And we never objected to the ongoing debate, the ongoing conversation, but it shouldn't be in lieu of the kind of pressure, which is all that Putin listens to these days.

STEPHEN COHEN: Oh, for God's sake. That's all he listens to. And you base that on what? Your careful study—

KENNETH ROTH: I'm watching—I've watched—

STEPHEN COHEN: Your careful study of Putin? Your following of Russian politics?

KENNETH ROTH: I've watched two—yeah, I've watched—let me answer. Let me answer.

STEPHEN COHEN: Look, at some point, let's be fact-based, OK?

KENNETH ROTH: I've watched him for two years—

STEPHEN COHEN: You simply don't know what you're—oh.

KENNETH ROTH: —talk and talk and talk with Kerry and Lavrov.

STEPHEN COHEN: Oh, oh.

KENNETH ROTH: And he just continued with the atrocities.

STEPHEN COHEN: You watched it, or you listened to what he said? Or you listened—you read it?

KENNETH ROTH: The only way to ratchet up—the only way he has made any—

STEPHEN COHEN: Oh, for God's sake.

KENNETH ROTH: —change in Syria is when the pressure mounts.

STEPHEN COHEN: We're back to Syria now.

AMY GOODMAN: We're going to have to leave it there. We're going to have to leave it there, but I want to thank you both for being a part of this discussion. Stephen Cohen is professor emeritus of Russian studies and politics at Princeton and New York University. And Kenneth Roth is executive director of Human Rights Watch. This is Democracy Now! 

The original content of this program is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License. Please attribute legal copies of this work to democracynow.org. Some of the work(s) that this program incorporates, however, may be separately licensed. For further information or additional permissions, contact us.