Cranky

You know the most amazing detail about the whole Skripal pack o' lies?  Why didn't Boris and Theresa have the Skripals sedated, and then simultaneously suffocate the two of them using pillows with matching pillowcases adorned with Conservative logos?  I kid - they've got people for that kind of work.  Still, they set the whole thing up with porkies of how grievously ill the victims were, and they could have sold the deaths as part of the whole Official Story.  There would have been some issues hiding the autopsy, and then cremating the bodies and losing the ashes in an unfortunately timed meteorite strike, but the (((media))) would have swallowed the biggest whoppers whole if it could lead to removing Putin as an impediment to Greater Israel (and yes, the consistent lying of the (((media))) really is as simple as that).  If you are seriously going to earn your shekels you have to be prepared to take the story down to its inevitable conclusion, up to and including murder.  "Poisoned ex-spy Sergei Skripal no longer in critical condition, improving rapidly".

Out of all of this outrageous lying and warmongering WWIII, the worst political news for May:  "'Another Leak': Moscow Reacts as Fate of Skripal's Pets Finally Revealed".  Besides killing pets, this seems to evidence appalling forensic science standards.  When did they decide it might be a good idea to take a look round the house?  Of course, if you knew the whole story was a lie, then you knew you wouldn't find anything, so why look?

"Times' lead article questioning govt’s ‘alliance against Russia’ vanishes, but URL remains (VIDEO)".  In these (((media))) days, url-examination has become a key part of charting the progress of the lies.  Is this an indication that Boris is slated to take the whole weight for the lies?  Not that he doesn't deserve it.

"Knobs and Knockers" (Murray). "Novi-Fog™ In Fleet Street - Truth Cut Off" (Moon).  Details, details.

"Media Warn of ‘Russian Bots’—Despite Primary Source’s Disavowal" (Johnson).  Russian bot political manipulation of Americans is a key part of this year of the pure Zionist propaganda tv show, Homeland.

"Trump Defies His Generals on ISIS and Syria" (Wright).  This isn't bad for the NO TRUTH ZONE (except for Farrow) which is the New Yorker, but there are still, of course, some choice sentences (not to mention how bizarre the premise that 'cranky' Trump is being somehow irrational in the face of his wise advisers in wanting "to get the troops home as soon as possible"):

1. "“We are in Syria to fight ISIS. That is our mission, and our mission isn’t over,” Brett McGurk, the State Department coördinator for the international coalition fighting ISIS, told the audience.";
2. "The failure to fully stabilize Iraq before the U.S. pulled out in 2011—notably brokering a power-sharing agreement among rival communities—contributed to political alienation and the rise of ISIS there." - !;
3. ". . . President Bashar al-Assad—whose ruthless response to peaceful protests sparked a war . . . ";
4. some hilarious bafflegab from notorious blackmail victim Lindsey Graham; and
5. "The troika has virtually hijacked a peace effort long led by the United Nations."

Part of the problem is that Trump insists on repeating the lie that the US defeated ISIS, when, as we all know, the reality is the opposite, that the Americans, under strict Khazar orders, did everything it could to support ISIS while it was being defeated by the Syrians and their allies (the Americans did give some support in the Kurdish fight against ISIS in the east, of course, trying to Yinonize the country using the Kurds).

"Pentagon Says No Syria Pullout Timeline; "Exasperated" and "Frustrated" Trump Concedes" (Durden).  The clusterfuck that not pulling out of Afghanistan has become, aptly summarized:  "Mobbed Up" (Cockburn) (all good, but see in particular):

". . . the universal assumption, at least among Western officials and media, was that the United States and its allies were supporting a legitimate Afghan government, albeit one marred by corruption, against a cohesive Taliban insurgency controlled from Pakistan. More complicated narratives were not welcome. One officer who served multiple tours in the country told me that new arrivals were never clued in as to what was really driving the conflict in the area: land disputes, tribal feuds, competition in the drug business. “It was, ‘Welcome to Afghanistan, here’s where you do your laundry, there’s the chow hall. Do a check-fire of your weapon, then go out to your deployment area.’ There was no turnover of institutional knowledge whatsoever.”

This particular officer did make considerable efforts to understand what was going on, and eventually concluded that “Taliban” was “not really a useful term anymore.” In reality, he concluded, the conflict in Helmand province, where he was posted, was fundamentally driven by a long-standing clash between at least two powerful tribes, the Alizai (led by Sher Mohammed Akhundzada) and the Barakzai (led by Malim Mir Wali). Most pertinently, the rival leaders were rumored to head competing drug cartels. “Most of the violence that I saw was not really Taliban-driven,” the officer said, “but cartel-driven.” As he came to understand, each drug lord was constantly seeking to gain greater access to the opium crop at the expense of the other, principally by influencing local police chiefs and government officials. “I think these two individuals and others like them in Afghanistan use ‘Taliban’ to cover their tracks. They will say, ‘There’s terrible things going on, and I blame the Taliban, or I blame Pakistan,’ when they are the ones actually doing it. So on any given day, violence will either remain on the border between their two territories or else push into one or the other’s area.”"

and (after a bit on how the Americans managed to almost double opium production in an environmentally destructive way by trying to stop opium production, and a bit on using a particular plane as advertising for the next boondoggle plane in the MIC pipeline):

"While the Air Force’s zealous promotion of its bombing doctrine helps to explain why the United States apparently now believes that Afghanistan can be pacified from 20,000 feet, other features of American military culture, often unknown to outsiders, have also had their effect on the country. I’m told that the Marines, for example, pushed for a major role in Afghanistan partly because most of the force that had earlier been sent to Iraq had come from units based on the East Coast. Now the West Coast Marines wanted a chance to earn their share of battle honors, promotions, and so forth.

Afghans who find bombs landing on their heads may not necessarily understand that at least some of their plight is a byproduct of US military personnel practices, notably the competition-based system for promotions. “If you get violent,” the US officer quoted above explained to me, “if you call in an air strike, not only do you get a combat ribbon and possibly an award for valor, but it also makes your report a combat report. When you have multiple combat reports and others do not, you’re more competitive for promotion and assignment to prestigious billets.” So even though the best course of action might be nonviolent, the culture is predisposed toward violence. “When you suggest doing something else,” the officer told me, “guys will say, ‘You’re overthinking this. These people just need to be killed.’ ”"

"Three Leaders In Ankara: The Syrian War Is Over But The US Remains Dangerous" (Magnier):

"The Trio agreed that the biggest danger comes from the US establishment willing to form a state for the Kurds on the Turkish-Syrian borders, which would divide the Levant. It was clear to all concerned that great menace touches both Syria and Turkey, therefore it is imperative to dismantle the US plan. The unity of Syria must be the objective of these Presidents whose initial objective calls for the return of the Syrian refugees to their own country."

"Jeremy Jesus-Christ Corbyn" (Atzmon).  Watching Corbyn under constant attack by treasonous Khazars is frustrating, but he may be some kind of political genius.  He seems to recognize the new Rule One of Voting, if the Khazars don't like you, and you can provoke them into making that clear in the whiny/threatening way that is uniquely theirs - they have this way of  imposing violent ruination on their opponents while somehow claiming in the most annoyingly shrill way possible that they are the real victims - you must be doing something right, and deserve the vote.