Ash writes: "The Intercept was live with a 2000-plus-word analysis and rebuttal of the dossier by Glenn Greenwald, their marquee voice. Greenwald's offering was, given its remarkably rapid construction, a surprisingly detailed presentation containing photos, graphics, Twitter interactives, and screen grabs from the actual documents."
Glenn Greenwald. (photo: AP)
Trump's Progressive Enablers
15 January 17
ate on the afternoon of 10 January, the trending online news site BuzzFeed posted what it described as “A dossier making explosive — but unverified — allegations.” The dossier contained a confidential overview of contacts and events that the report’s author sought to convey to his anonymous client as likely having occurred between then-businessman Donald Trump and contacts in Russia.
By 6:35 am the following morning, The Intercept was live with a 2000-plus-word analysis and rebuttal of the dossier by Glenn Greenwald, their marquee voice.
Greenwald’s offering was, given its remarkably rapid construction, a surprisingly detailed presentation containing photos, graphics, Twitter interactives, and screen grabs from the actual documents. It was also heavily laden with hyperbole, conjecture, and rhetorical flourish.
Greenwald stood on principle, Greenwald stood on journalistic integrity, Greenwald stood on Eisenhower’s shoulders, Greenwald stood on his desk in an effort to discredit and thwart the impact of the dossier. It was a masterwork of counter-spin. Some might say damage control. Had the Trump camp itself set out to counter the fallout from the release of the leaked dossier they could hardly have moved more quickly or efficiently.
Greenwald established that BuzzFeed, a click-bait infotainment website, hadn’t acted responsibly in publishing documents that were never intended for public display to begin with.
The “Deep State” reference in the headline was pure hyperbole. Presumably it’s the CIA. Because they are trying to undermine the President-elect? But not the FBI, who the Guardian characterized as “Trumpland” and whose Director James Comey roiled the Clinton campaign 11 days before the election with an October surprise?
The usually reliable Robert Parry at Consortium News does a great job, circumstantially, of discrediting the motives of U.S. intelligence officials for informing Mr. Trump of the existence of the allegations that would latter emerge in the dossier published on BuzzFeed.
Parry suggests that this is evidence that U.S. intelligence officials effectively used J. Edgar Hoover-like blackmail tactics on Trump to get him to admit that Russian hackers had indeed breeched Democratic Party email servers. None of which Parry substantiates factually.
All the while ignoring even the remotest possibility that Putin and his operatives might actually have compromising images (Kompromat) of Donald Trump doing what Donald Trump is notorious for doing, namely compromising himself in the most high-profile manner imaginable in pursuit of women young enough to be his grandchildren.
That would in fact tie in well to the article’s overarching J. Edgar Hoover theme, but with Russian president Vladimir Putin holding the cards and U.S. intelligence officials sounding the legitimate warning to the next commander in chief. As they are required to do. As long as documentary evidence is no longer needed, right?
Former CIA analyst turned agency critic and Consortium News regular Ray McGovern seemed possessed of an almost manic intensity when he arrived at the comments section of our website, Reader Supported News, to disparage me for suggesting in print that, if the Russians had in fact influenced the U.S. election that would indeed be a serious matter. McGovern even went so far as to make an insulting reference to my name worthy of a grade school playground, finally posting links to his articles and disappearing.
I challenged McGovern to a public exchange on the facts. So far no response.
Donald Trump is Trouble with a capital “T.” Right here, right now. Believe it. You can’t enable him now and defeat him later. Trump and his supporters are delighted by the efforts of Greenwald, Parry, and McGovern. No one in their stable could have fired back as effectively.
In six days, Donald Trump gets the nuclear launch codes. He also gets control of the legal apparatus that will review the legitimacy of his interactions with the Russian Federation. What we learn in the next six days may be all we will ever learn.
We would do well to learn all that we can. No matter how much Donald Trump’s defender-enablers try to discourage doing so.
Marc Ash is the founder and former Executive Director of Truthout, and is now founder and Editor of Reader Supported News.
Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported News.
|
THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community. |
 09 February 2017
|
 11 February 2017
|
 11 February 2017
|
 10 February 2017
|
 09 February 2017
|
 09 February 2017
|
 09 February 2017
|
 10 February 2017
|
 11 February 2017
|
Comments
We are going to return to our original fully-moderated format in the comments section.
The abusive complaints in the comment sections are just too far out of control at this point and have become a significant burden on our staff. As a result, our moderators will review all comments prior to publication. Comments will no longer go live immediately. Please be patient and check back.
To improve your chances of seeing your comment published, avoid confrontational or antagonistic methods of communication. Really that is the problem we are confronting.
We encourage all views. We discourage ad hominem disparagement.
Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News
Putin plus Comey and a hundred other factors figured in the 2016 election outcome. But Putin and Comey together make it fixed. And Putin alone threw the close 2016 election through millions and millions of hits on the fake news he spawned.
What evidence? Buck naked accusations are not evidence.
Right (not). Something has to be complicated to be true. Complicated and confusing. Only then should we begin to believe.
Trump, an amateur in campaigning, evidenced an intention to take campaign support from any source whatsoever, even to the extent of imploring the Russians to hack and release more DNC confidential info.
If a coordinating link is found between Trump campaign and Russian hacking we are in Watergate redux territory. The only question might be what will the GOP do about it.
Another aspect of this episode involves PAC law -- it's as if there was an offshore PAC operating in support of the Trump campaign. As far as I know this may be an unprecedented legal issue, one certainly worthy of robust investigation.
Yes, HRC was lacking in many, many ways. Bernie was the better Democratic candidate. But here we are and this is it. Time to fight the good fight.
I freely but unhappily admit I haven't got a clue about what is involved in the legal aspects of how these powerful and money-laden operations function.
I doubt that it will prove to be positive.
I am distressed to see you falling squarely into one of the main problems the progressive side of the country faces..... attacking other progressives and liberals.
Calling Glenn Greenwald and Ray McGovern "Trump enablers" only does us all harm and makes real change harder.
Glen Greenwald's journalism has been and continues to be an impeccable search for the truth, even though you may not want to hear it.
Ray McGovern has the same credentials and has suffered being beaten because of it:
http://www.commondreams.org/further/2011/02/16/so-america-veteran-ray-mcgovern-bloodied-and-arrested-clinton-speech
Please Marc, stop with the attack dog tactics and help build a progressive movement.
I suspect that the Russians in one way or another may have influenced the election. But I also suspect their efforts to do so were a mere shadow of U.S. efforts to influence Russian elections or the elections in any other country in the world. So what? However, I suspect that the effect of any Russian influence was minuscule compared with the damage done by Clinton herself and the DNC.
The fundamental problem is that we wanted Sanders and the DNC gave us Clinton; and the emails proved beyond any shadow of doubt how they colluded to deprive us of what we wanted. The effect of the Democratic Party treachery was a thousand times greater than any insignificant influence by Russia or the rest of the world combined.
So I say to you Marc, open your eyes and see the forest - not just a couple of small trees. Stop tripping over the mouse dung on the mountain. Open your eyes to the problems we have that we created for ourselves that are a thousand times greater than those anyone else could ever impose on us.
If you are going to be of service to your readers, focus on the corruption that lies at the heart of our political system. I don't want to hear any more of this crap about foreign enemies. We know who the real enemy is. We have met him, and he is US.
Actually I would like to believe this research because it might hasten Mr. Trump’s exit from the presidency of our country. But no, the “golden shower” sticks in my craw as a reason to question this opposition report. I know that Mr. Trump has a voracious appetite for sex but somehow this story goes beyond his sexual proclivities, which I accept are beyond most of our paltry ambitions in that department.
It is the ‘cleanup’ that really makes me doubt the veracity of this story. How in hell could this be executed in the Presidential suite of a top Russian hotel without the management raising hell about the cost of cleaning the carpets? I don’t think Vladimir Putin would want to pay that bill for his friend even if the video was fun watching..
If any of you have experienced this exhilarating show curious minds want to know.
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3259984-Trump-Intelligence-Allegations.html
As if Trump did not have his own trap of (narcissistic, sociopathic) personality? Anything Hillary waged pales by comparison. Anyway, EVERY politician at that level has soooome narcissism going on! But if it's a woman, by God, she should be...what? a wallflower? What sexist crap! As if Trump and the GOP do not play identity (white, hypermasculine, billionaire elitist) politics?! PLEASE!!!
The double standards that people on this site and generally hold for Trump and Clinton just shows how deeply entrenched is sexism in our society and how far we have yet to go. I don't want to ever again hear any crap about Latin machismo (women have been elected presidents in eight Latin American countries!) until we vote for one in presumably progressive U.S.
Your analysis is not only simple, it is simplistic. It ignores that Clinton actually won a majority of working class whites and the many ways the GOP has worked to suppress the vote for generations with major assists in recent years from the Supreme Court (Citizens United and diluting the Voting Rights Act). Clinton was not an ideal candidate (who is?!) nor ran a perfect campaign (who does?), but that is hardly sufficient explanation for her loss. Again, double standards.
When Trump says We would be wise cool relations with Russia, I agree. When Trump says There is no evidence to support hacking of DNC, I see that as truth. Does that mean I support Trump? I do not! I support these ideas. It is precisely the issue vs personality debate so lacking in US politics today.
Of course, the pu$$y grabbing president elect would never be involved in perverted acts with prostitutes. There's also a lawsuit filed by a woman who was in an orgy with the orange one when she was a minor, substantiated by an independent third party witness. Of course, none of these things will come to light, once he is sworn in.
The political landscape is not defined by Clinton v. Trump, for one or against that one. Unfortunately, those heavily invested in one personality or another tend to see political issues in such narrow-minded canyons.
Trump and his incoming administration are by all definitions and measures fascists, not Nazis, but fascists a la Mussolini. Hell, he even tries to affect Mussolini poses. He gives us plenty of reasons to regard him as a crook, a coward, a bully, a sociopath. He gives us plenty of reasons to despise his methods and his "policies."
We don't need to make stuff up to go after him. Maybe the Russians did do more than hack some e-mails. Maybe not. If they did, prove it. Don't play games as Comey did.
To me, it is bizarre that they now stand accused of being "enablers" for Trump. They are merely pointing out the obvious, that those in the intelligence community who Greenwald and Parry have skewered, deservedly, in the past, with great acclaim from posters on this site, are engaged in an operation to prevent Trump from reversing their dangerous policy against Russia, which could lead to World War III.
Greenwald, Parry and Ray McGovern have great integrity. Clapper, Brennan, Comey and others in the intel community, have none.
Why not continue to post their articles, when those they are attacking are not progressives at all, but those who have always been at the top of the list of those progressives were fighting?
I don't think you've been reading what's out there. We and people like us don't need to "prove" stuff that already is pretty much proven (about the best one can get in an uncertain world). Putin and Wikileaks together perpetuated a bunch of Trumped up fake news that was hit upon millions and millions of times. And people believed the bullcrap. And elected Trump. QED.
His point seems to be that this dossier is unreliable information, promoted to delegitimize the President-Elect on specious grounds. Apparently both US Intelligence agencies and news media agreed, which is why they didn't promote it until John ("Never Met A War He Doesn't Love) McCain leaked it.
I'd add that, even if the "golden showers" allegation proved true, and videos of it were broadcast all over the corporate media, it wouldn't substantially affect his approval ratings.
This creep famously said he could shoot to death someone in broad daylight on 5th Avenue and his ratings would go up... and then his ratings went up.
The "P*ssy Grab" tape was meant to destroy him. Not so much, eh?
The entire primary/electio n process was rigged, and anything short of admitting that is just partisan whining.
Instead, it seems, he was actually bragging, not blaming.
With friends like these...
Standing right behind and flanking your left side is your close associate, friend and confidant, Brutus Areilious. Just in case you make any progress...
I was late and missed Sen. Bob Casey, who is one of the thirteen Dems to vote against Sanders' amendment, and was today's first speaker.
Afterward I talked to a woman with a great sign calling shame on Casey and the other twelve. She said only about twenty people booed him when he began to speak. She had friends at a rally in New Jersey who said about two-thirds of the people there booed their senators.
When Casey was finished he walked over to this woman, having seen her sign. He told her he was WORKING WITH SANDERS on a number of issues. Excellent. He knows what he SHOULD be doing and he sees people are watching him. He is up for re-election on 2018. This lady and I made arrangements to get a group together to go to Casey's office this week.
Sanders was with Schumer in MI, where about 8000 attended. Rallies were held in 40+ cities.
CNN has covered the event in MI, and local news was at the Philly rally, which was a mix of older Americans and families with children, union members, blacks, whites, Hispanics, Asians and one young anarchist -- a great mixed group. Several representatives spoke. Some gave information for people to organize and there were scattered signups.
Let's get this party started! O P P O S I T I O N !!!
Now, let's get more reports like this one from all the RSN posters re: the actions we are taking. Everyone needs to go to the Women's March this Sat. happening near you. I challenge every poster here to post a report about their experiences on a RSN article about the rallies published this coming Sunday!
To be clear, Trump is bad news; but what's the option at this point? President Pence?
Clinton didn't lose the election because of Comey or the Russians. She lost because she offered neo-liberalism and more of their so-called "free-trade" agreements that have been devastating working Americans in the rust belt.
Progressives like Greenwald and Hedges aren't enabling Trump; they're enabling the truth which is becoming a scarce resource when the establishment's lies are offered as the truth about Trump's fictitious worldview.
Learn all we can, but until we're presented with concrete evidence of the claims the IC is putting forward; we're all operating in a world of hunches, bias confirmation and fake news, including much that's narrow cast on CNN and MSNBC.
It seems pretty clear that Clapper tried to blackmail Trump with this dossier. He gave Trump a 2 page summary at the breifing that was supposed to be about Russia hacking the DNC. The blackmail was -- if you don't say what we want you to say, we will release this to the public. When Trump did not say what Clapper demanded, the CIA/ODNI gave CNN and Bussfeed the green light to release the dossier. Trump called their bluff and the dossier was so hoakie that it just fell flat. Almost no one in the mass media would touch it with a ten foot pole.
Minnesota Public Radio mentioned that if California had as many electoral votes per person that Wyoming does, they'd have close to 200, instead of the 55 they currently have. If my math is correct, that means that the votes of 3 of every 4 voters who voted for Clinton in California, didn't count towards an electoral vote. For a country whose mantra is supposed to be "one person, one vote," I find this situation extremely frustrating. Why would people in California want to vote when they know that only one of four votes count. I believe it's the same for New York, Illinois, and the other more populated states.
There is something wrong with this page: I get a message my postings need to be reviewed before they are published. It´s quite disturbing.
There are certain things that progressives support: Peace, health care for all, education, a basic income for all, and similar things that help, rather than hurt, the common folk. Progressives can be Republican, Green, Libertarian, Democrat, even Independent.
I did not vote for Donald Trump. I plan on keeping on eye on Congress. I have two Democrats for my US Senators and a Repulican for my US Representative. All three of them tend to favor corporations over people. That is not a progressive stance to take.
Glen Greenwald is one of the better journalists out there. Take a look at this video: https://youtu.be/PJQf50jsFKU
Did the Russians really hack the DNC? There is no evidence that Russia or anybody in Russia did this. Read this article: http://www.counterpunch.org/2017/01/13/did-the-russians-really-hack-the-dnc/
In this one area, I believe that Donald Trump is more progressive: He is willing to negotiate with, rather than persecute Russia.
I would point out that the party labels have been rendered essentially meaningless for at least as long as the US has been sliding down the well-greased slope of neoliberalism.
The terms "right" and "left" originally referred to the side of the speaker of the French at which the royalists (right) and republicans (left) sat, with "republican" referring to representative government of, by, and for the 99 percent and let the One Percent fend for themselves as they surely will for those who are not familiar with that history.
I would submit that while the party labels are meaningless, most if not all of what "progressives" stand for is "left," and (let us hope) "proud of it."
The majority of comments refuse to acknowledge that there were votes and non-votes that were for neither Trump nor Clinton (and that nothing but a vote for Trump was a vote for Trump). I didn't vote for the ******* either, nor for either of my two Republican Senators. My Rep is the outgoing chair of the CBC and pretty good.
Politics is the negotiation and use of power, usually through governments, but really in any power dynamic. Economics is really the main instrument of power in our day to day lives.
So, I see it not as left/right, but as top/bottom.
Where should the locus of power be? Should it be at the top of the pyramid, or the base?
Or, should there be a pyramid at all? Do we need an elite?
But, given that we do live in a stratified society, I think most power should be at the individual level. When one individual's use of power affects others, then I think the weight should be given to the greatest good for the greatest number, as long as that does not harm any individual who is not seeking to harm others.
Hence, a democratic socialist republic.
That wold be bottom-weighted , and result in very little point to any pyramid.
My point here is that, even though I feel we have a grasp on the meaning of political terms such as democratic, socialism, capitalism, republic,... , many others do not.
I had a fairly thorough public education (white, suburban) and a good bit of college and a lot of my learning is from reading, not just the internet. More so, my political knowledge also comes from conversing with educated people degreed in political science and other well read and experienced individuals. Living close to DC you tend to meet some of the "players". Others don't have that opportunity.
I fear as the public education, our common means of cultural literacy and commonality, gets less effective we become a people who cannot relate due to lack of reference and vocabulary. One person will think that the political "Right" means they are "Correct". Thus, since "Left" is opposite of "Right", "left" will mean "Wrong". (actual conversation I had with someone)
They have no interest in the business, the employees, the customers or the greater society. All they care about is gambling on whether stocks will go up. And of course, the big boys in the stock market (and commodities/fut ures) are not gambling at all, since they've rigged the game.
And yes, education has been steadily declining over the past several decades, and is likely to get even worse. As George Carlin said, the people who own us want us just smart enough to run their machines, but not so smart that we realize how much they're f*king us.
The only evidence I've seen of Russian hacking says nothing about specific Clinton emails passing from Russia to the FBI to Trump.
James Comey andJames Clapper are both known liars. Taking their word for "top secret" documents they claim to have would be foolish.
Clinton lost because she failed to win over — or even campaign in — the Rust Belt states.
That horrible entity, the Electoral College, is unfortunately the name of the game. The Democrats ended up with a fairly decent platform. But they fell short at the real work of US presidential politics: winning EC votes.
No one's fault but theirs.
My sense of the divide in this country is based on the book "When Society Becomes An Addict," by Anne Wilson-Schaef. ALL adicctive personalities share one common trait, and that is they are in denial of their issues. Once a person is in denial of their issues, as Trump is, they are free to blame everyone else for all the problems. What Trump did, is the same thing Hitler did - he gave people targets for them to blame their fear and anger on, (Muslims, mexicans, and Clinton) just as Hitler did (Communists, trade unionists, and Jews.) Trump used tactics outlined in Mein Kampf to win this election. It's no coincidence that Trump's first wife reported in Vanity Fair, that Trump kept a copy of Hitler's speeches by his bedside for late night reading. My belief is that Trump and his supporters are co-dependent on each other, which is why he wants to continue holding rallies. His poor self image demands it.
The people who think they are good judges of character are usually the easiest to con. That may also be a large part of what happened. I have more information, but not the room for it here.
I heard Gov. Rendell and Bill Clinton pushed for going to the rural areas while Chuck Schumer said, For every rural voter you lose, I'll give you two suburban moms. Oops. Too bad he's in charge of the Senate, yeah?
He does seem to be throwing peanuts at progressives. We'll see how deep that goes.
So either the campaign ignored two ol' dawgs who knew what they were talking about .. or they weren't confident anyone would show up and worried it would look bad. They needn't have worried. The msm covered up how poorly attended her events were, even in the cities.
Yours: "Vladimir Putin, a dictator who has bombed hospitals, killed children, and has had opponents executed in other countries, including the United Kingdom."
Surely you intended to begin that language with "Obama" (not "Vladimir Putin").
This was a very common argument in the Soviet press: a child was killed in Vietnam by the U.S., so it doesn't matter that we Soviets killed several hundred children in Afghanistan. It does matter. Any time a child dies or a hospital is bombed, it is wrong, no matter who is responsible. Please don't defend Putin's atrocities by the argument: "Well, this other country did it, too, so who cares if Putin did it?" We should care and we must care.
This should have gotten 90 upvotes, not the 1 when I tuned in.
No one here is looking to justify bombing civilians. No one.
They I trust. Risking life and liberty to bring us the truth in things.
The known British operative who presented the dossier on trump first presented it to the FBI, but they did not move on it, so as I understand it it was given to McCain.
Any American official knowing about that dossier would be derelict of duty by not making it known to a law enforcement agency.
The rest of your comments are specious, non-factual; "irrational," "absurd," "no logic." Why should anyoe give them any credit?
Let the tapes surface whenever, get to work proving the allegations and resisting on all other fronts.
As an Editorialist calling out hyperbole:
"It was a masterwork of counter-spin. Some might say damage control. Had the Trump camp itself set out to counter the fallout from the release of the leaked dossier they could hardly have moved more quickly or efficiently"
Marc, really?
I think Greenwald might be capable of spitting out 2000 words in the early morning hours, posting it, and being effective, but maybe you should sleep on it. Your rancor is quite evident and your methods in line with MSM (you sound like who, Sean Hannity? Any suggestions from folks who have cable, and watch that stuff?) when you use hyperbole to link Greenwald with Trump's goals. Shame.
For one, it's naive to believe that Putin WOULDN'T have tried to influence our election. In this cyber age, ALL of the major world powers have GOT to be doing this. Good lord, the US itself has been complicit in the overthrow of 50 heads of state since the end of WWII, some of which were democracies, and most of that happened way before the internet.
Secondly, I direct you to an incredible report from Rachel Maddow that aired this past week that IMHO should be receiving more attention than it has:
Exxon needs US policy change to cash in on big bet on Russia
Rachel Maddow shows ExxonMobil's heavy investment in Russia, which it has yet to be able to exploit because of U.S. sanctions on Russia over the annexation of Crimea, and how a change in that policy could means hundreds of millions of dollars for ExxonMobil.
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/watch/exxon-needs-us-policy-change-to-cash-in-on-big-bet-on-russia-853063747565
After watching this report, ask yourself "Why WOULDN'T Putin be moving heaven and earth to get an administration in there that would lift the sanction?
Try this analogy. You are out on a boat enjoying yourself and decide to go swimming in the ocean.
Ready to jump over board. Wait, there is a fin poking up in the water near your boat. You know little about sharks and can't really see it. In these waters it could be a harmless shark or a dangerous man-eating shark. What's you next move?
Jump in? Oh, it won't hurt me. Or take precautions and stay out of the water until you know you are safe?
Both Putin and trump are sharks.
Why are you trying to lessen or dilute the impact of heartfelt criticism of Putin and Trump?
Yeah, why can't Russia stop bombing 8 different countries? Why do they insist on building hundreds of military bases along our border?
And with one whole aircraft carrier, why are they concerned that the US has 19 (half of the total in the entire world), and is building 3 more of a new and much more lethal class right now?
I quite well remeber the Rachel Maddow boosting of the faked Engel kidnap by the "Assad thugs", then to be rescued by the "Free" Syrian army only for it to turn out to be a faked capture and rescue by the same people in the endless propaganda against Assad and when the fake news was exposed, she never apologized for it.
Though I whole-heartedly disagreed with his promotion of the war against Iraq, I respected his reasoned defense of that position - not based on falsehoods and irrational fear-mongering like most. And I was/am very disappointed that even after we saw that we'd opened the gates of hell to no benefit to most anyone of "the people," he defended his stand.
But still, his oeuvre is so rich in knowledge, wit and logic that I choose to forgive what I see as his rare, emotional response to the Fatwa placed on the head of his dear friend, Salmon Rushdie.
And of Hillary hater and hater in general librarian1984 .
There are PLENTY of reasons to be critical of Tillerson and EXXON, but wanting to normalize trade relations with Russia is NOT one of them.
Note: I am NOT referring to "Free Trade" which is a corporate/banki ng scam, but fair trade. It's much better to do business with another country than wage war with them.
http://www.wnyc.org/shows/otm
I'm more sure all the time that the media is just playing us, and has been since before this election campaign began. We are divided. The 0.01% are Ruling.
I think you are on the wrong side on this one, or you cannot see the nature of the arguments clearly. Greenwald et al are not supporting Trump, but only trying to ask what is the evidence and how do we deal with it (or lack of it). This piece is off base and I think a bit out of synch with your readership.
I think this is nutty. People like Greenwald and Parry are wonderful and have been published here regularly and all along. And having read this material, I've never thought they liked Trump at all. Still, it's easy for anyone to get off track for a minute. Or in tennis, not to hit a controlling shot so that one immediately loses the argument or the point.
I think you have the right idea, Marc and you are out of sync with only part of your readership.
The fundamental problem is that the intelligence agencies squandered their credibility with reports of weapons of mass destruction in order to drag us into an unprovoked and unjust war. They have done nothing since to restore their lost credibility. Without credibility or solid evidence, they cannot be believed.
And if they cannot be believed, they cannot be trusted.
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.
What do you do? You add bits and pieces of info up like competent investigators do and try to come to rational conclusion based on the information one knows. That is without political dogma, personal feelings, hopes or wishes or choosing sides getting in the way of clear eyed, rational thinking.
Actually I believe US agencies are still trying to investigate and tell us what happened.
Don't insult me. The Stockholm Syndrome presumes a physical hostage in close reltionship to the captors.
http://gawker.com/glenn-greenwald-takes-his-turn-in-the-spotlight-593163038
You should work for the CIA. They love that stuff.
To the best of my knowledge, no one has proved Greenwald ever lied to us.
I am happy that they are progressives like Greenwald who are still able to look at things objectively and arrive at rational conclusions and not consumed by the Trump derangement syndrome that appears to have totally eaten up Marc Ash that he now believes a CIA coup is what is best for our country. he needs to see how it worked out for them in Iran, Chile, Argentina Iraq ans etc.
The censors can delete the post as usual and think themselves better protectors of press freedom than Trump. take out the log in your eyes before trying to dig the speckle in your opponents eye.
Didn't happen, did it?
The nation suffers. Nothing gets done. Trump won't resign. He won't back off. We should understand that by now. His hardcore supporters will support him more than ever.
Marc is just abetting the efforts of the CIA to carry out a regime change at home. Is Pence really better than Trump?
Ask Barak to hang around until the 2017 re-do is tabulated.
Keep accusing, Mark.
ne·o·lib·er·al· ism (nē′ō-lĭb′ər-ə- lĭz′əm, -lĭb′rə-)
n.
A political theory of the late 1900s holding that personal liberty is maximized by limiting government interference in the operation of free markets.
Free Market is fine, IMO, as long as it is regulated, which might negate some of the "free" part. "Limiting" government interference shouldn't mean ELIMINATING interference. I would not want to have a private toxic waste plant or even a personal residence with sewage spewing poisoned waste water into the Patuxent River. I would want government regulation to make sure the waste water from the industry or individuals to comply with regulations to be cleaned or treated and disposed of properly and safely. That is just one area of interference that, to me, is reasonable.
0 # JJS 2017-01-19 05:27
Are you only referring to "personal" liberty?
yes. no one has the right to impose on another's life or property.
You would be imposing on my life, my water and my property.
Wouldn't you deduce that regulating your pig and chicken poop with property zoning regulations and effluent limits are needed so you do not impose on my life and property?
Or would you prefer I get my gun and shoot your pigs and chickens to limit their number and protect my life and property?
I am not going to give up:
So this article makes clear why my comments are under threat. I, along with many others here, have been adamantly speaking out against this "al CIAduh(!)" false-propagand a that this site supports; so, rather than responding in writing to my comments, they are now being moderated for the first time in a long time, and mindgames are being played with them, deleting parts of them; and then, after I re-submit them, finally re-posting them, evidently hoping that I won't re-submit them.
Is anybody else here who is critical of the Russia-Trump meme also being retaliated against? Are everyone's comments being moderated now, or are some people being singled out and/or targeted because of their not towing the party line? It will be interesting to see if this present comment even gets posted in the first place, since they have already refused to post recent comments that I've made which had nothing wrong with them.
Selective freedom of speech, why am I not surprised? What I am surprised about is that for almost two years there wasn't any moderation, or very little, and apparently relatively little censorship. Now the censorship appears to be back in force [allegedly responding to "the (so-called) problem" of, and preventing, multi-part comments because of the arbitrary number-of-chara cters limitation---a way to limit freedom of speech while appearing to "not" be doing so]. If some people here are being censored, please stop it.
#
RSS feed for comments to this post