by Stephen Lendman

The Qusair victory has been a serious setback for the Washington-led coalition of interventionists in Syria’s internal affairs.

Qusair’s strategically important. Western-backed death squads controlled it for over a year. On June 5, Syrian forces triumphed. Insurgent fighters were routed. Many were killed. Others were captured. Remaining elements fled.  On June 8, Buwayda village was secured. It was the final area-held insurgent position. Syria’s in full control. Qusair borders Lebanon. It’s in central Homs province. It’s part of an important insurgent supply route.

According to General Yahya Suleiman:

“Whoever controls Qusair control the center of the country, and whoever controls the center of the country controls all of Syria.”

On June 8, an unnamed senior Syrian military officer said:

“We can now declare Qusair and the surrounding area to be a fully liberated area. We will go after the terrorists wherever they are.”

On June 6, the Los Angeles Times headlined “Syria loyalists in Damascus cheered by Qusair victory,” saying:

A man called Ali said “(w)e never thought of defeat; now we know the final triumph is coming.”  LA Times writers said “victory in Qusair was one of a string of recent battlefield successes that has not only improved the government’s strategic position, but also boosted morale among loyalists in the capital and elsewhere.”

A previous article cited a recent NATO study. It shows 70% of Syrians support Assad. They do so for good reason. They’re outraged about foreign intervention.  Western-backed death squads are responsible for mass killing and destruction. They’ve committed appalling atrocities. Syrians want them routed and defeated. They want their sovereignty respected. They want peace and stability restored.

Pro-Assad solidarity’s increasing. LA Times writers said Syrians “view the president as holding back a wave of Islamic extremists funded by Turkey, Arab states and the West.”  Washington’s fully in charge. It’s running things. It has from inception. It’s orchestrating ongoing fighting. LA Times writers didn’t explain. A Syrian merchant did, saying “(t)his so-called revolution is not of our making.”

What’s ahead remains to be seen. Regime change is longstanding US policy. Plans won’t change. Conflict continues. It does so despite decisive Syrian victories.  Qusair’s most important of all. Other areas have been liberated. Perhaps ahead they all will be. Death squad fighters are no match against superior Syrian military power. Cutthroats excel only in killing civilians and committing gruesome atrocities.

Whether Washington plans US-led NATO intervention bears close watching. Israel’s very much involved. Netanyahu actively supports Al Qaeda and other extremist Islamists.  So does Washington. Syria knows its liberating struggle goes on. Conflict could continue for years. It’s Washington’s call.

Decisions made there matter. Obama officials will decide what follows. Nothing suggests peace and stability breaking out. Plans call for continued death, destruction, subversion and destabilization.

Michel Chossudovsky is right. “The West should pay reparations to Syria,” he said. War crimes must be addressed. Washington, key NATO partners, Israel and rogue Arab state allies bear full responsibility.  What’s ongoing reflects naked aggression. Syria was invaded. Death squads are Western-backed proxy foot soldiers. There’s no ambiguity about Washington’s war. Conflict was planned years ago.

Only its timing remained to be determined. When and how it ends isn’t known. Ordinary Syrians suffer most. The longer conflict persists, the greater Assad support grows.  Syrians depend on his protection. They deplore Western and/or Israeli control. They value their sovereign independence. They want no part of extremist Islamist governance. They alone deserve the right to choose who’ll lead them.

Recent key events are important. For over 10 days, anti-government protests rocked Turkey. Prime Minister Erdogan is Washington’s lead attack dog.  Millions of Turks reject his hardline rule. Turkey is more police state than democracy. Dissent isn’t tolerated. No country imprisons more journalists than Turkey.

Police brutality is well known. Dissenters are targeted. Civil and human rights abuses are commonplace. Nonviolent protesters are attacked violently.  Turks have multiple reasons for outrage. They reject authoritarian rule. They want social justice. They deplore Erdogan’s involvement against Syria. They want regional stability restored.

Perhaps they’ll influence Turkish anti-Syrian policy. Erdogan’s domestic concerns may compromise his belligerent involvement.  Most Turks want no part of it. They want major internal change. So far they’re staying the course. They erected thousands of tents in Istanbul’s Gezi Park. They warned authorities against storming it.

So-called pro-Erdogan demonstrations appear government orchestrated. Most people don’t endorse thuggish rule. Erdogan’s more despot than democrat.  Turkish Nobel Literature Prize laureate Orhan Pamuk expressed alarm. Erdogan’s uncompromising attitude worries him most. On June 7, he said:

“I am concerned for my country, and I am following the events with sorrow. There is no signal (for) a peaceful solution (on) the future between the government and demonstrators.”

“Everyone who lives in Istanbul has certainly an unforgettable anecdote (re Taksim Square). I understand and embrace people (protesting).”

“Taksim has a huge political past. I saw conservatives, nationalists, socialists, social democrats and the military pass from there. So I hope that this will be solved with peace.”

“The government is making a mistake trying to build a shopping center in such a sensitive place.”

It’s historically important. It’s Istanbul’s last green space. Artists, intellectuals, students, workers, activists and others want it preserved.  They’re outraged about police brutality. They support peaceful demonstrations. Istanbul Mayor Kadir Topbas expressed readiness to cancel development plans.

“We are definitely not thinking of building a shopping mall there, no hotel or residence either,” he said. “It can be…a city museum or an exhibition center.” Erecting an Ottoman era military barracks replica will proceed as planned.

Protests continue nationwide. Erdogan’s Justice and Development Party (AKP) announced June 15 and 16 counter demonstrations. Doing so throws fuel on the fire. They may incite more violence.

Hell, it’s said, hath no fury like a woman’s scorn. Perhaps its greater fury erupts against contemptuous disregard for popular concerns. The longer it continues, the harder it is for Erdogan to continue supporting Washington’s war most Turks oppose.

It remains to be seen what effect it has on what unfolds. Qusair and other Syrian victories compromised US plans. Western leaders expressed concern. On June 9, UK Foreign Minister William Hague said Assad’s gains make Geneva II “harder to bring about and to make a success.”

In other words, it’s unlikely he’ll capitulate to Western demands. It’s harder when most Syrians oppose them.  Assad’s in a position of strength. Syrian forces fought hard to achieve it. They’re solidifying control over most areas. Supplying more arms to insurgents won’t change things.

Direct US-led NATO intervention remains possible. Perhaps it’s likely. It’s hard imagining America abandoning longstanding regime change plans. The fullness of time will explain what’s coming.

If Obama forgoes direct intervention, Assad will emerge victorious. At the same time, conflict may continue longterm. Tens of thousands more may die. Millions will suffer.  Obama bears full responsibility. He’s a war criminal multiple times over. He’s waging war at home and abroad.

It bears repeating. He belongs in prison, not high office. Impeachment is essential. Crimes too grave to ignore can’t be tolerated. They persist globally. Popular resistance more than ever is needed. Nothing else will stop America’s rampage. Hegemons don’t quit unless forced to. It’s high time Americans said no more.

A Final Comment

Syria’s conflict remains unresolved. Salfist violence in Lebanon continues. Israel’s a wild card. Netanyahu actively supports extremist Islamist fighters. He launched early May air attacks on Syrian soil. Previous articles discussed them.

Netanyahu goaded Syria to respond. Several times, Israeli forces shelled cross-border. In late May, an Israeli military vehicle provocatively crossed the ceasefire line.

It was captured and displayed. Israeli rocket fire targeted Al-Zubaydiah village. Repeated provocations goad Syria to respond. Doing so would provide pretext for greater intervention.

Events perhaps head toward doing so. Maybe Israel will replace Erdogan as Washington’s lead attack dog. On June 7, UN peacekeeping chief Herve Ladsous addressed a closed emergency Security Council session. He said Israel threatened to launch cross border attacks.

According to Ladsous, Israeli and Syrian clashes nearly erupted. It would have been the first time since the 1973 Yom Kippur War. After insurgents briefly controlled Quneitra demilitarized border areas, Syria deployed tanks and armored personnel carriers in response.

An Israeli Defense Ministry statement followed. It told UNDOF (UN Disengagement Observer Force) that if Syrian tanks continued, “the IDF would take action.”

UNDOF’s commander informed Syrian authorities. They said Syrian tanks were there to fight insurgents. Being there breached the 1974 disengagement agreement.  Syrian forces regained control hours after insurgents did so. These type of  incidents are potential flashpoints. Provocations start wars. Key is whether Washington wants full-scale intervention. If so, all bets are off.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.  His new book is titled “Banker Occupation: Waging Financial War on Humanity.”

http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanII.html

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.  

Listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network.

It airs Fridays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening. 

http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour 

Obama’s cabinet, national security team, and other close advisors reflect a virtual rogues gallery of scoundrels. Susan Rice as National Security Advisor and Samantha Power as UN envoy are on board in new capacities. Rice shifts from UN ambassador to the White House. A previous article quoted the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity saying “she belongs in the big house, not in the White House.”

Given her notion of humanitarian intervention, Power belongs there with her. On June 5, Obama announced both appointments.  He was right calling Power “a relentless advocate for American interests and values.” He was wrong saying doing so reflects “building partnerships on behalf of democracy and human rights.”

He called Power “an indispensable member of my national security team.” He stopped short of explaining her imperial role. Senate confirmation is required.  Expect it to be rubber-stamp. Democrats control the body. Based on John McCain’s comment, Republicans aren’t likely to object. He called her “well-qualified for this important position.” He urged swift confirmation.

[pullquote] Straight from the aristo corridors of Harvard, she’s the perfect sociopath for the job, a classic example of large-scale criminality at one remove. [/pullquote]

Other notable neocons praised her nomination. Former Senator Joe Lieberman said he’s “very encouraged by the president’s appointment.”  Alan Dershowitz called her “a perfect choice.” Uberhawk Max Boot said she’s “a very capable and principled advocate of humanitarian intervention.” He stopped short of explaining the mass death and destruction it causes.

The Islamophobic Anti-Defamation League said “(W)e are heartened that the US will be represented by an individual whose moral resolve and fierce pragmatism will serve our country well.”

In accepting the nomination, Power called it “the honor of a lifetime to fight for American values and interests at the United Nations.” She stopped short of explaining her interventionist advocacy. Howard Zinn in part addressed it. He did so in an August 2007 New York Times letter. He challenged Power responsibly. “(S)he claims a moral distinction between ‘inadvertent’ killing of civilians in bombings and ‘deliberate’ targeting of civilians in suicide attacks,” he said.

“Her position is not only illogical, but makes it easier to justify such bombings.” Her principles are reprehensible.

“The terrorism of the suicide bomber and the terrorism of aerial bombardment are indeed morally equivalent,” Zinn added.  “To say otherwise is to give one moral superiority over the other, and thus serve to perpetuate the horrors of our time.”

In May 2004, Edward Herman‘s article headlined “The Cruise Missile Left: Samantha Power and the Genocide Gambits.”  The term genocide is “politicized,” said Herman. Attaching it to an enemy justifies bombing, invading, and assassinating its leaders.  Genocide is what they do, not us. Power and likeminded ideologues think this way. She’s a prominent “cruise missile left” adherent.  Francis Boyle calls her husband Cass Sunstein a “lethal neo-con.” From 2009 – 2012, he was Obama’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs administrator.

For 27 years, he taught constitutional, administrative and environmental law at the University of Chicago Law School. He’s now at Harvard Law School. Boyle calls it “the school for torturers.”  Sunstein deplores First Amendment and other democratic freedoms. He believes rule of law principles are best observed by subverting them. Perhaps Power shares his extremist views. Faux liberals pretend otherwise.

Her book titled “A Problem From Hell: America and the Age of Genocide” gained her prominence. She “never departs from the selectivity dictated by the establishment party line,” said Herman.  In other words, horrendous US genocides are ignored. They’re longstanding. They’ve been ongoing since the republic’s inception.  Historian Gabriel Kolko studied the nature and purpose of US power. He calls it “violen(t), racis(t), repressi(ve) at home and abroad (and) cultural(ly) mendaci(ous).”

Howard Zinn said US leaders try portraying America as as a benevolent nation. It never was. It isn’t now.  For centuries, the US waged genocidal war on Native Americans, African Americans, and targeted countries worldwide.

According to Ward Churchill, native peoples were “hacked apart with axes and swords, burned alive and trampled under horses, hunted as game and fed to dogs, shot, beaten, stabbed, scalped for bounty, hanged on meathooks and thrown over the sides of ships at sea, worked to death as slave laborers, intentionally starved and frozen to death during a multitude of forced marches and internments, and, in an unknown number of instances, deliberately infected with epidemic diseases.”

Black Africans were captured, branded, chained, force-marched to ports, beaten, kept in cages, and stripped of their humanity. Around 100 million or more were sold like cattle. Millions perished during the Middle Passage.

Zinn called US slavery “the most cruel form in history: the frenzy for limitless profit that comes from capitalistic agriculture; the reduction of the slave to less than human status by the use of racial hatred, with that relentless clarity based on color, where white was master, black was slave.” Are things any different today?   US history reflects genocide. What began from inception persists. It does so globally. Ideologues like Power pretend not to notice. She looks the other way. America is the solution, not the problem, she claims.

“A Problem from Hell” won a Pulitzer prize. Herman called it a “masterpiece of evasion and apologetics for ‘our’ genocides and call for a more aggressive pursuit of ‘theirs.’ ”  Ideologues think that way. So-called liberal and more hawkish ones represent two sides of the same coin. Imperial interests alone matter.  If confirmed, Power will be Washington’s 28th UN envoy. Earlier she covered the Balkan wars, East Timor, Rwanda, Sudan and Zimbabwe as a journalist. She did so one-way.

In 1996, she joined the International Crisis Group (ICG). She served as a political analyst.

In 1995, ICG was founded by former World Bank vice president/UN deputy secretary-general Mark Mallock Brown and former US diplomat Morton Abramowitz. It supports power, not populist interests.  From 1998 – 2002, Power served as executive director of Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government Carr Center for Human Rights Policy.

She was Anna Lindh Professor of Practice of Global Leadership and Public Policy. Until March 2008, she was one of Senator Obama’s senior political advisors.  She stepped down early in his presidential campaign. She did so after calling Hillary Clinton a “monster she is stooping to anything,” she said. She called her tactics “deceit(ful).”

She was hard on John Kerry during his 2004 presidential campaign. Referring to his Vietnam service, she said:

“He must have thought that having got shrapnel in his ass out there bought him some credibility. It didn’t.”

In November 2008, she joined Obama’s State Department transition team. From January 2009 – March 2013, she was Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for Multilateral Affairs and Human Rights at the National Security Council.

In April 2013, Obama appointed her head of a new Atrocities Prevention Board. She consistently turns a blind eye to the worst ones America commits.

She calls US foreign policy “a toolbox.” It includes a whole range of options, she says. “There is always something you can do.” Her notion of humanitarian intervention is take no prisoners. She and Susan Rice played leading roles in urging “humanitarian war” on Libya. A previous article said genocidal slaughter followed.  So-called responsibility to protect is code language for show no mercy. When America intervenes, with or without NATO partners, death, destruction, resource theft, exploitation and human misery follow.  Civil rights lawyer Chase Madar called her career “a richly instructive example of the weaponization of human rights.” She came to prominence urging belligerent intervention. She did so calling it humanitarian.

In Bosnia, Rwanda and Darfur, she asked: “Why does the US stand so idly by?” America “has made modest progress in its response to genocide,” she said.  It’s not good enough, she stresses. She urges bolder interventionism. So-called responsibility to protect (R2P) shows no mercy. At issue is protecting US imperial interests.  She called NATO’s Yugoslav war a stunning success. It “likely saved hundreds of thousands of lives” in Kosovo, she claimed. She turned truth on its head saying so.

From March 24 – June 10, 1999, US-led NATO waged lawless aggression. Serbia and Kosovo were ravaged. Doing so was called humanitarian intervention.  For 78 days, around 600 aircraft flew about 3,000 sorties. They dropped and launched unprecedented amounts of ordinance. Nearly everything was struck. Massive destruction and disruption followed.

Targets included known or suspected military sites, power plants, factories, transportation, telecommunications facilities, vital infrastructure, rail lines, fuel depots, schools, a TV station, China’s Belgrade Embassy, hospitals, government offices, churches, historic landmarks, and more.

An estimated $100 billion dollars in damage resulted. So did a humanitarian disaster. Environmental contamination was extensive.  Large numbers were killed, injured or displaced. Two million people lost their livelihoods. Many lost homes, communities, and futures.

Balkanizing Yugoslavia opened an avenue to Eurasia. Multiple direct and proxy wars followed. They continue with more planned.  American-led genocide slaughtered millions. Many more die daily. Power calls imperial interventions stunning successes.

If confirmed as new UN envoy, her mandate is to assure many more like them. Advancing America’s imperium for sure reflects “a problem from hell.”

________________
The Media Angle—

New York Times Editors Defend the Indefensible

by Stephen Lendman

Rice and husband: impudently enjoying the rewards for serving the plutocracy.

It’s standard Times practice. It’s longstanding. On June 6, Times editors praised Obama’s selection of Susan Rice and Samantha Power. They’re deplorable choices. They’ll move from current capacities to new national security positions. More on that below.

Times editors endorsed what demands condemnation. What they say matters. Times articles, commentaries and editorials have impact. What’s reported attracts global attention.  Longstanding Times policy is consistent. It operates as a quasi-official ministry of managed news misinformation. It masquerades as the real thing.

[pullquote]

Rice is morally depraved. South African journalist Getahune Bekele was right calling her a “consummate ally of grubby despots.”  Banality of evil best describes her. Death and destruction don’t bother her. Imperial priorities alone matter. Her style matches Hillary Clinton. She deplores peace, nonviolence, diplomacy and social justice. Her outbursts reflect bullying, bluster and arrogance.

[/pullquote]

Doing so violates fundamental journalistic ethics. The Society of Professional Journalists’ Code of Ethics Preamble states:

“….public enlightenment is the forerunner of justice and the foundation of democracy.”

“The duty of the journalist is to further those ends by seeking truth and providing a fair and comprehensive account of events and issues.”

“Conscientious journalists from all media and specialties strive to serve the public with thoroughness and honesty.”

“Professional integrity is the cornerstone of a journalist’s credibility.”

The Times violates its own “Company Policy on Ethics in Journalism.” It does so without apology or explanation.

It states in part:

“In keeping with its solemn responsibilities under the First Amendment, our company strives to maintain the highest standard of journalistic ethics.”

“(W)e tell our audiences the complete, unvarnished truth as best we can learn it.”

“(I)t is essential that we preserve professional detachment, free from any hint of bias.”

The longstanding record of “the newspaper of record” belies its high-minded rhetoric. It’s deplorable. Times management and editors support wealth, power and privilege. Populist interests are spurned. Pretense claims otherwise.

When America goes to war or plans one, Times editors march in lockstep. Rule of law principles and other democratic values don’t matter. Powerful privileged interests alone are served. Public trust, credibility, honor, integrity, impartiality, fairness and truth are sacrificed in the process. Doing so is longstanding Times policy.

This writer’s open letter challenged Times editors. It asked:

Do imperial wars bother you? Does human suffering matter? Is business as usual OK? Are sham elections? Is democracy for the few alone?

Do corporate interests count more than populist ones? Do wealth, power, privilege, and unchallenged dominance alone matter? What about an unconscionable growing wealth gap?

How about corporate and political lawlessness? What about a private banking cartel controlling America’s money? Is looting the federal Treasury OK? What about reckless money printing to serve them?  Do growing poverty, homelessness, hunger and despair concern you? What about deepening social decay symptomatic of national decline?

How about growing millions worldwide calling America a pariah state for good reason? Waging political, economic, social, and hot wars put it in a class by itself.

Are you concerned? Is this the America you support? Dare you call it beautiful?

You have global clout. You could use it responsibly. You could expose what’s wrong and help reverse it. You’d be heroic for trying. Doing the right thing is its own reward. So is good journalism. Try it sometime and see.

Try publishing “All the News That’s Fit to Print” for real. Perhaps you’ll never look back and go another way. It’s wishful thinking to expect America’s establishment broadsheet to change longstanding practices. Serving wealth, power, and privilege are too engrained.

On June 6, Times editors headlined “The New Security Team,” saying:

As National Security Advisor, Rice’s “task will be to help Mr. Obama go beyond (his) first-term goals explain to Americans and the world how he intends to wield American leadership and fulfill his stalled promises, including reducing nuclear weapons, curbing climate change and using foreign aid and other economic tools to help the nations that were changed by the Arab Spring uprisings achieve economic and political stability.”

Fact check

Obama’s promises aren’t stalled. They’re systematically spurned. He broke every major one made. His word falls short of his bond. He’s a serial liar. He’s a moral coward. He’s a war criminal multiple times over. His national security and other key officials share culpability.

His nuclear policy asserts the right to use these weapons preemptively. His 2010 Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) reflects old wine in new bottles.

Rhetoric changed, not policy. NPR 2010 said America “reserves the right” to use nuclear weapons “that may be warranted by the evolution and proliferation of the biological weapons threat and US capacities to counter that threat.”

No threat whatever exists. New more advanced weapons replace older ones. US nuclear policy prioritizes greater deterrent capability. It unilaterally asserts the right to strike preemptively. It does without cause, justification or consequences of doing so.

So-called foreign aid serves US interests alone. So-called Arab Spring terminology is doublespeak duplicity. It’s a Western term, not a Middle East one.

America deplores peace and stability. It prioritizes conflict, violence and destabilization. Doing so serves longstanding imperial interests. Don’t expect Times editors to explain.

In choosing Power as UN envoy, Obama named “a strong human rights advocate and former White House aide,” said Times editors.  She and Rice “are seen as liberal interventionists who favor using American power on behalf of humanitarian causes overseas. Both will bring fresh energy to their positions.”

Previous articles discussed both nominations. Rice is morally depraved. South African journalist Getahune Bekele was right calling her a “consummate ally of grubby despots.”

Banality of evil best describes her. Death and destruction don’t bother her. Imperial priorities alone matter. Her style matches Hillary Clinton. She deplores peace, nonviolence, diplomacy and social justice. Her outbursts reflect bullying, bluster and arrogance.

Her support for US lawlessness makes her complicit. She’s indifferent to human suffering. She’s a monument to wrong over right. She’s a disgrace and embarrassment to her country, position and humanity.

She’s criminally unqualified to serve. Her rap sheet includes complicity in major crimes. As Clinton’s Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs, she was involved in proxy genocidal wars on Congo.

She has close ties to Rwanda’s Paul Kagame and Uganda’s Yoweri Museveni. Both men are two of many African “grubby despot” US allies. As Obama’s UN envoy, Rice was instrumental in supporting them. She did so earlier under Clinton.

As National Security Advisor, she’ll add to her rap sheet. It’s already bloodstained. She’s morally unqualified for any public or private office.

Samantha Power has her own cross to bear. Edward Herman once called her a prominent “cruise missile left” adherent.

Her book titled “A Problem From Hell: America and the Age of Genocide” gained her prominence. She “never departs from the selectivity dictated by the establishment party line,” said Herman.

Genocides are what they do, not us, she believes. America bears full responsibility for centuries of genocidal slaughter. Airbrushing them from history doesn’t wash.

Ideologues like Power try reinventing history their way. So-called liberal and more hawkish ones represent two sides of the same coin. Imperial interests alone matter.

Power calls US foreign policy “a toolbox.” It includes a whole range of options, she says. “There is always something you can do.” Her notion of humanitarian intervention is show no mercy.

She and Rice played leading roles in urging “humanitarian war” on Libya. Genocidal slaughter followed. Africa’s most developed country was ravaged and destroyed.

Violence, instability, poverty, unemployment and human misery reflect current conditions. It’s true wherever America intervenes. Dark side realpolitik alone matters.

In their new national security capacities, expect Rice and Power to urge more of the same. Don’t expect Times editors to explain.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached atlendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.  His new book is titled “Banker Occupation: Waging Financial War on Humanity.”

http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanII.html /// Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

Listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network.  It airs Fridays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.

http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour

http://www.dailycensored.com/samantha-power-for-un-envoy/