Boot recently produced an article entitled Wikileaks has joined the Trump administration at Foreign Policy, the largely Neo-conservative magazine founded by Samuel Huntington of Clash of Civilisations fame.
I've followed Boot's work here and there over the years. I first noticed him when he was associated with the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) back during the Iraq War years. He's one of those authors that makes the rounds and his name pops up from time to time. A member of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) Boot (though he presents himself as something of an outsider), is part of the media and academic Establishment.
Strongly opposed to Trump he's part of the media project to undermine him. What struck me here is to what lengths these people will go. I'm not sure where the public is at but certainly among the 'respectable' folk in academic, political and media circles this whole package regarding Wikileaks and Russia has now become established orthodoxy.
Boot's convoluted article is par for the course absurd and patently so. I suppose he's banking on the fact that those who read his article know nothing about Assange? Riddled with contradictions, one moment Assange is in cahoots with Putin, the next he's in with Trump. He lambasts and mocks conspiracy theorists and yet essentially he's positing that Vladimir Putin has through a Manchurian Candidate, with Leftist collaborators... has taken over the US government.
Not only is this stupid, it appears desperate. And indeed these folks are so desperate to remove Trump they're resorting to lunacy.
Or perhaps they know something. Maybe the stage is being set and by the time this is done it will be like Watergate or the Kennedy Assassination. The labyrinth of lies will become so complex that no one will ever be able to resolve them and come to the truth of the matter.
I said in the title that Boot has joined the CIA. I have no idea but such things are hardly unknown or even unusual. Langley clearly owns a trove of journalists, academics, bureaucrats and staffers. This is not disputable. Boot doesn't have to join the CIA or be in their pay to write such an article but it's clear he has established a relationship with the figures in the Establishment and particularly in the military which has been favourable toward his writing. By producing such work Boot (even if he's not under orders or getting paid) is nevertheless providing his own job security. The people that do hold the cards (so to speak) in academia, the military and intelligence community take note of such projects and people like Boot are marked, put in the favourable column. They can be called upon or if down, rescued and recruited. It's an old story but as far as this article by Boot, that's all it is... a story.
It's also of interest that you have people like David Rothkopf running Foreign Policy magazine. His CV is telling. He's connected to several think-tanks associated with globalist agendas and even projects that seek to promote 'peace'. He's also a Democrat that publically supported Obama. For some on the Right, this marks Foreign Policy as necessarily being liberal. And yet Rothkopf spent years working for Kissinger Associates and is also connected to Wall Street, having once run a couple of prominent 'insider' publications. The idea that this guy is somehow a liberal is problematic to say the least.
Granted, for all I know he loves homosexuals and feminists. Fine, but someone who promotes the US empire, which is often cynically done through think-tanks and NGO's that promote globalism and peace, as well as being a person connected to Wall Street... this fellow is not a liberal. Maybe according to Steve Bannon's or Rush Limbaugh's lame categories this person is a 'liberal' and yet by the estimation of those on the Left or someone who is a principled outsider like myself... Rothkopf does not represent modern Liberal or Leftist values. The fact that Boot and Rothkopf are part of the same publications and projects further demonstrates that the Left-Right divisions within the Establishment are largely false.
Despite some battles over social issues and certainly over style... the overwhelming impulse within the US power-Establishment is Right-wing. The imperial project wed to capitalism and militarism is at the heart of what the US is and these people are there to promote and defend it.
The battle with Trump is superficial. The public is not even seeing the real issues. They are obscured. The media is heavily engaged in a bait and switch shell game. Look at this, and this, and this... but never consider what is going on or the real issues. There's no context, and the analysis is self-serving and phoney.
Trump is a deplorable human being. All US presidents are but Trump doesn't know how to conduct himself with class. He's not following the script but he's no rebel. There's a type of civil war going on within the Establishment and yet again from the perspective an outsider, the differences are not that great. It's really more of a power-struggle. Trump is not the rogue element he's perceived to be. Make no mistake the Establishment wants him gone and they will use this episode to bolster their power but the ideological battle is false. There are schemes, counter-schemes and intrigues. Before it's done some people may suffer great harm. Some will be brought down and destroyed and yet the 'clash' to use Huntington's term is largely contrived. It's just a power game and a war of factions. This doesn't mean that it can't (or won't) spin out of control. There is an element of danger.
The Establishment is united in its war against Putin and Assange and largely against Trump. They are doing all they can to weave them together into a united adversary... and despite stupid articles like this Boot piece, they're pulling it off.