The inevitable end result of our last 56 years

[W. Niederhut]

2 hours ago, Joe Bauer said:

Like a dark intrigue movie. But real!

Who are these ominous looking black SUV with antennas and darkened window people? Who know what you are doing, where you live and follow you?

And who try to intimidate even Senators who are not going along with "their" agendas?

I think even Leahy felt some fear in his being watched, followed and with ominous appearing coercion intimidation.

Is this what our senators must deal with when their intended decisions contradict the powers to be?

Let's not forget about the mysterious death of Senator Paul Wellstone on October 25, 2002-- after Dick Cheney had privately threatened Wellstone for not supporting the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld push to invade Iraq.

Wellstone was expected to win re-election to the Senate in November of 2002.

Wellstone's friend Al Franken believes that Wellstone's October plane crash was no accident.

[Matt Allison]

My impression of that article is that the spooks were trying to get Leahy to inform himself further about the push for war, and specific evidence that the war was not justified.

Recall that Dick Cheney did not get along with the CIA; at one point he even outed one of their officers, calling her "fair game", and thus forcing her to come in from the cold.

[Douglas Caddy]

 

Fiona Hill: ‘Elon Musk Is Transmitting a Message for Putin’ - POLITICO

[W. Niederhut]

3 hours ago, Matt Allison said:

My impression of that article is that the spooks were trying to get Leahy to inform himself further about the push for war, and specific evidence that the war was not justified.

Recall that Dick Cheney did not get along with the CIA; at one point he even outed one of their officers, calling her "fair game", and thus forcing her to come in from the cold.

Matt,

     IMO the outing of Valerie Plame by Cheney, Libby, and Rove was not an indication that the Bush/Cheney administration wasn't working closely with George Tenant and the CIA in their "War on Terror" ops.  In outing Valerie Plame, they were retaliating, foolishly, against Plame's husband, Joe Wilson, for outing their fraudulent claims about Nigerian yellow cake uranium and Iraqi WMDs during the run up to the Iraq invasion in March of 2003.

    Incidentally, we learned during Fitzpatrick's investigation of Scooter Libby and the Valerie Plame affair that Karl Rove had been appointed in 2002 to chair a secret Bush/Cheney committee in charge of selling the American public on the necessity of invading Iraq.

    The Bush/Cheney CIA and Pentagon was closely involved in the entire Project for a New American Century/"War on Terror."  At the Pentagon, Rumsfeld's #2 and #3 men were PNAC members Paul Wolfowitz and Douglas Feith.  PNAC men at the CIA included Bush/Cheney appointees Dov Zakheim and Buzz Krongard (whose financial associates were involving in shorting UAL and AA stock prior to 9/11.)

[Matthew Koch]

5 hours ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

 

 

I mention only because we in the U.S. don't like to discuss elements of Socialism, because it's pretty icky1

 

 

Hey Kirk.. 
Remember in the DNC primaries when the Super Delegates for the Democrats redistributed the votes from Bernie Sanders to Hillary and he got a taste of Socialism... and we got Donald Trump, THAT WAS AWESOME!!!

 https://www.npr.org/2015/11/13/455812702/clinton-has-45-to-1-superdelegate-advantage-over-sanders

 

Edited October 22, 2022 by Matthew Koch

[Matthew Koch]

3 hours ago, Matt Allison said:

My impression of that article is that the spooks..

The racist history of the word "spook."

https://boingboing.net/2020/10/22/the-racist-history-of-the-word-spook.html

 

 

 

NPR published this article on the etymological history of "spooky" in 2017, but I didn't read it myself until last year. I knew that "spook" had its spy-level implications, of course; I just didn't realize how complicated the racialized appropriation of the word had grown over the years.

Spook comes from the Dutch word for apparition, or specter. The noun was first used in English around the turn of the nineteenth century. Over the next few decades, it developed other forms, like spooky, spookish, and of course, the verb, to spook.

From there, it seems, the word lived a relatively innocuous life for many years, existing in the liminal space between surprise and mild fear.

It wasn't until World War II that spook started to refer to black people. The black Army pilots who trained at the Tuskegee Institute were referred to as the "Spookwaffe" — waffe being the German word for weapon, or gun. (Luftwaffe was the name of the German air force).

Once the word "spook" was linked to blackness, it wasn't long before it became a recognizable — if second-tier — slur.

NPR has a lot more fascinating details on the shifting usage and meaning of "spook"/"spooky" over the years. And lest you're afraid this is one of those supposed instances of people "looking for things to get offended by," the article addresses in what I think is very fair and thoughtful manner, too:

NPR published this article on the etymological history of "spooky" in 2017, but I didn't read it myself until last year. I knew that "spook" had its spy-level implications, of course; I just didn't realize how complicated the racialized appropriation of the word had grown over the years.

 

 

Spook comes from the Dutch word for apparition, or specter. The noun was first used in English around the turn of the nineteenth century. Over the next few decades, it developed other forms, like spooky, spookish, and of course, the verb, to spook.

From there, it seems, the word lived a relatively innocuous life for many years, existing in the liminal space between surprise and mild fear.

It wasn't until World War II that spook started to refer to black people. The black Army pilots who trained at the Tuskegee Institute were referred to as the "Spookwaffe" — waffe being the German word for weapon, or gun. (Luftwaffe was the name of the German air force).

Once the word "spook" was linked to blackness, it wasn't long before it became a recognizable — if second-tier — slur.

NPR has a lot more fascinating details on the shifting usage and meaning of "spook"/"spooky" over the years. And lest you're afraid this is one of those supposed instances of people "looking for things to get offended by," the article addresses in what I think is very fair and thoughtful manner, too:

 

"Be thoughtful about the fact that [spook] now might have the connotation of referring to a black person in a disparaging way," Blake says. "If someone says, 'Did you get spooked?' and there are no black people there, then, OK, you mean 'Did you get scared or frightened?' That's fine, I get it."

But once you insert black people into the situation, Blake says, it's important to be more tactful. "We know that the word 'niggardly' doesn't mean a black person, but let's be sensitive. Are you going to use the word niggardly in front of a group of young students in a classroom? No."

A friend of mine posted this link on Facebook, with a similar contextualization, that I shared on Twitter:"There are people who will read the headline and think 'god everybody's offended.'

"And then there are people who will say, I didn't know a history before and I'm gonna make small changes because what matters to me is doing the least harm to people around me.

 

 

 

OMG 😳 Matt, I feel offended for others do to your violent racist rhetoric (Sarcasm added)

https://www.newsweek.com/before-you-use-word-spooky-you-should-know-its-racist-origins-1541441

 

[Matthew Koch]

 

[Douglas Caddy]

Jane Fonda comes to Houston to block walk with Democrat County Judge Lina Hildalgo who is a candidate for re-election. The right-wing extremists have marked her for defeat, but the county is a Democratic Party bailiwick. 

 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/travel/article/jane-fonda-block-walks-with-harris-county-judge-lina-hidalgo-days-ahead-of-early-voting/ar-AA13gAwA?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531&cvid=cb733943deb546a08a2f16183344c3e7#image=AA13gPoO|6

[Benjamin Cole]

6 hours ago, John Cotter said:

Thanks for that, Matthew. It's always good to hear the side of the story that our overlords don't want us to hear.

To be sure, read many viewpoints.

But as a layman, I wonder if some who predict Russia success are making the same mistake that military analysts made in Vietnam or Afghanistan, or other occupations. 

They see one side with superior equipment, maybe even a larger economy. They predict victory for the militarily superior force. The Russian artillery and tanks. 

How long until Ukrainians figure out IEDs, which caused US to remove tanks from Afghanistan (the Marines have entirely forsaken tanks, btw). 

Occupied fighting forces adapt, and often never quit. 

Putin's invasion, a volitional war, is looking increasingly cruel, including the destruction of civilian areas and infrastructure. The Ukrainian civilians see that. That does not inspire surrender, but rather hardens resolve. 

Putin now says he wants regime change in Kyiv, and the US wants regime change in Moscow. 

This could be a quagmire. Putin's Afcrapitsan. 

A reasonable suspicion is that the Biden Administration was adrift, and US intel-state engineered this war, by all but inviting Putin into Ukraine. The "offering Zelensky a ride" moment.  The US intel-state predictions, widely leaked, that Russia would prevail quickly. 

Maybe so, maybe Putin was baited. That does not excuse Putin. A volitional war is a criminal war. 

 

 

[Guest]

20 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Occupied fighting forces adapt, and often never quit. 

I agree that happens. I am not sure it applies In this case, the reason being is that in the wars we are used to seeing, there is usually a sense of accountability. ie the USA Is in Afghanistan, they are observed to some degree by the international community. They typically fight in a way that leaves them relatively free of criticism of war crimes. In places where guerilla warfare is the occupied forces MO, the US has had to fight almost with hands behind their backs. Russia has already been kicked out of the international community, in fact, the international community wants Russia abolished. Russia doesn’t answer to the western hegemony. The point I am making is; if push comes to shove, they won’t worry about any conventions or treaties. They’ll just do whatever they need to to win and their neighbour China won’t care or judge either. A win for them is different to our concept of a win. If they start using Vacuum bombs or anything else that causes mass destruction, I am 100% sure that a surrender en mass will happen. The Ukranians also don’t have the terrain like the Afghans. The Japanese had a citizenry that was willing to die as a Kamikazee. They surrendered pretty quickly after seeing the devastation of the two bombs. Its a bad idea pushing Russia further into a corner. 

Shakespeare said “all is fair in love and war.” we might understand that better in this conflict. Peace saves the most lives. It’s what should happen. 

[Matt Allison]

3 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

not an indication that the Bush/Cheney administration wasn't working closely with George Tenant and the CIA in their "War on Terror" ops.

Then why did those spooks tell Leahy to dig deeper?

[Matthew Koch]

15 minutes ago, Matt Allison said:

Then why did those spooks tell Leahy to dig deeper?

https://www.newsweek.com/before-you-use-word-spooky-you-should-know-its-racist-origins-1541441

Before You Use the Word 'Spooky' You Should Know Its Racist Origins

With all the skeletons, witch hats and spider webs decorating homes and stores across the nation during Halloween—not to mention the plethora of horror movies widely available during the month of October—it seems fitting to call it "spooky" season.

However, there are connotations associated with the word "spooky" that are much more horrifying than the ghosts to which the term usually refers.

According to Merriam-Webster, the word "spooky" is defined as, "relating to, resembling or suggesting spooks." A further break-down of "spook" gives way to the meaning, "ghost, specter" or "an undercover agent: spy." But the Dutch word describing apparitions, which first came into use around the 19th century, took on a more sinister meaning around World War II, when white American soldiers started referring to their Black counterparts as "spooks."

[Joe Bauer]

7 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

10 hours ago, Joe Bauer said:

 

Let's not forget about the mysterious death of Senator Paul Wellstone on October 25, 2002-- after Dick Cheney had privately threatened Wellstone for not supporting the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld push to invade Iraq.

Wellstone was expected to win re-election to the Senate in November of 2002.

Wellstone's friend Al Franken believes that Wellstone's October plane crash was no accident.

Franken believed that? Wow!

[W. Niederhut]

28 minutes ago, Matt Allison said:

Then why did those spooks tell Leahy to dig deeper?

Matt,

    Obviously, there were people in the intelligence community who knew in 2002 and early 2003 that the Bush/Cheney administration was making a fraudulent case for invading Iraq.

     Even Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill complained in his memoir, The Price of Loyalty, that Rumsfeld had been blathering about invading Iraq as early as January of 2001 (and also immediately after 9/11.)

   But Cheney and Rumsfeld had also staffed the Pentagon, CIA, and DOJ with PNAC insiders who intended to depose Saddam Hussein and implement their Project for a New American Century-- Wolfowitz, Feith, Zakheim, Krongard, Cherthoff, et.al.

   George Tenet played along with the whole scam.  He sat next to Colin Powell during his Iraq WMD "slam dunk" presentation at the UN.

[Benjamin Cole]

1 hour ago, Chris Barnard said:

I agree that happens. I am not sure it applies In this case, the reason being is that in the wars we are used to seeing, there is usually a sense of accountability. ie the USA Is in Afghanistan, they are observed to some degree by the international community. They typically fight in a way that leaves them relatively free of criticism of war crimes. In places where guerilla warfare is the occupied forces MO, the US has had to fight almost with hands behind their backs. Russia has already been kicked out of the international community, in fact, the international community wants Russia abolished. Russia doesn’t answer to the western hegemony. The point I am making is; if push comes to shove, they won’t worry about any conventions or treaties. They’ll just do whatever they need to to win and their neighbour China won’t care or judge either. A win for them is different to our concept of a win. If they start using Vacuum bombs or anything else that causes mass destruction, I am 100% sure that a surrender en mass will happen. The Ukranians also don’t have the terrain like the Afghans. The Japanese had a citizenry that was willing to die as a Kamikazee. They surrendered pretty quickly after seeing the devastation of the two bombs. Its a bad idea pushing Russia further into a corner. 

Shakespeare said “all is fair in love and war.” we might understand that better in this conflict. Peace saves the most lives. It’s what should happen. 

CB-

It may be that Russia will go "scorched earth" on Ukraine, though short of nuclear weapons. 

Some experts say Sri Lanka's war on insurgents was a success as they obliterated the opposition brutally. And Russia appears to have prevailed in Georgia and Chechnya (I know not details). 

But Ukraine is a nation of 40 million, perhaps 5 to 10 million willing to pick up arms, serve in the military. The US intel-military-industrial complex may find a long war an interesting and worthy proposition. 

Both the US and Russia lost in Afcrapistan. 

Sadly, I see Ukraine setting as a stalemate. Putin (an aggressor) is not going to quit, but the Ukrainians are in the for the duration. 

If I had to lay odds, Putin will eventually lose. But that could be 10 years from now.