Benjamin Cole Posted September 21, 2022 Share Posted September 21, 2022 15 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said: Ben, You're someone who repeatedly criticized Biden and NATO for not intervening more aggressively in Ukraine after Putin's invasion earlier this year, so I'm a bit puzzled to hear that you are now advocating less belligerence. The only consistency in your opinions about U.S. policy in Ukraine seems to be that Biden and the Donks are making a big mistake if they pursue war or peace. As for Afghanistan, it's not a matter of opinion that Trump and Pompeo surrendered to the Taliban at Doha in February of 2020. It's a fact. W- In the real world, there are nuances, which generally escape partisan dogmas, Donk or 'Phant. Yes, the Biden Administration might have been able to forestall or even prevent the Ukraine war, by more-clear signaling. Offering Zelensky refuge and not arms was likely a mistake. Getting Russia into detailed and prolonged negotiations early on in the Biden Administration, and appeasing Putin in certain public platforms might have worked also. Curiously, Putin once asked to join NATO. Somehow Trump handled Putin on Ukraine---could Biden extend the track record somehow? Why not? Once the war was on, the West should have been more clear that a robust response was the result. The quavering did not work on Putin. Now, we have what looks like the worst outcome---a prolonged stalemate, and largely Putin's doing. He declared a volitional war, and deserves to be loathed for it. One can wonder if there was a way to avoid this war, or a way now to bring it to the most-rapid conclusion possible. My broader message is this: The Donks are 100% in on all military-foreign policy spending and interventions. The Atlantic article is typical. There is no loyal opposition in America anymore. No one asks , "We have spent $2.8 trillion on the Deep State since Biden took office. Can we spend money differently?" (DoD, VA, black budgets and pro-rated interest on the national debt). That's about $8,000 for every man, woman and child in America. Instead, the Donk messaging is, "MAGA is a threat to democracy!" As a Donk voter, you don't feel used sometimes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benjamin Cole Posted September 21, 2022 Share Posted September 21, 2022 An excellent review of the Wuhan lab leak, and administration-media lying. Remember, the Donk-M$M not only lied about the Wuhan lab leak, but then censored anyone on social media who pursued the lab leak story. Why? Why did the Donk-M$M lie about the Wuhan lab leak and then engage on social media censorship? If you think the MAGA yahoos are a threat...I got news for you...threat to what? A nation where the Wuhan lab leak is defined by the Donk-M$M as a nut-job conspiracy theory? MAGA is better than or worse than that? Which toilet do you want to drink out of? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Allison Posted September 21, 2022 Share Posted September 21, 2022 Anyone can say anything they want on YouTube. Remember kids, don't believe everything you see on the internet Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W. Niederhut Posted September 21, 2022 Share Posted September 21, 2022 Trump "handled Putin on Ukraine," Ben? On what planet? That's like claiming that Neville Chamberlain "handled Hitler on Czechoslovakia." Trump was Putin's puppet. I'd say that Putin "handled Trump" rather deftly from 2017-21. As for the invasion of Ukraine, you've been all over the map on the issue this year, perhaps echoing the misleading Faux polemics of Glenn Greenwald. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Allison Posted September 21, 2022 Share Posted September 21, 2022 It's fascinating how something this old can be so relevant yet again. Written in 1959; revised in 1964. https://harpers.org/archive/1964/11/the-paranoid-style-in-american-politics/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Bulman Posted September 21, 2022 Share Posted September 21, 2022 23 minutes ago, Matt Allison said: It's fascinating how something this old can be so relevant yet again. Written in 1959; revised in 1964. https://harpers.org/archive/1964/11/the-paranoid-style-in-american-politics/ Matt, you might appreciate Joseph McBride's take on Hofstadter in his recent book Political Truth: The Media and the Assassination of President Kennedy: Joseph McBride: 9781939795618: Amazon.com: Books , pages 226-236 plus others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Allison Posted September 21, 2022 Share Posted September 21, 2022 We are all familiar with much of Victor Marchetti's saga; well, it turns out this evening the DOJ used one of his cases as an example in their reply to Team Trump wrt the classification process. This one: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/509/1362/222621/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Allison Posted September 21, 2022 Share Posted September 21, 2022 1 minute ago, Ron Bulman said: Matt, you might appreciate Joseph McBride's take on Hofstadter in his recent book Ron- I haven't read it; can you possibly summarize it for me? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Allison Posted September 21, 2022 Share Posted September 21, 2022 "the individuals bound by the secrecy agreements may not disclose information, still classified, learned by them during their employments regardless of what they may learn or might learn thereafter. Moreover, neither should be heard to say that he did not learn of information during the course of his employment if the information was in the Agency and he had access to it. At least, a substantial presumption should be raised against him in those circumstances. With whatever apparent sincerity a fallible recollection may be expressed, one in Marchetti's high position in the CIA should be presumed to have been informed of all important items of information to which he had access. On remand the District Judge should review these general findings in light of this opinion, authorizing disclosure of those items of information only which first came to them unofficially after the termination of their employment. The judgment is affirmed in part, vacated in part and remanded for such further proceedings as may be necessary in accordance with this opinion. Affirmed in part; vacated in part; remanded." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Allison Posted September 21, 2022 Share Posted September 21, 2022 (edited) duplicate Edited September 21, 2022 by Matt Allison Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Bulman Posted September 21, 2022 Share Posted September 21, 2022 (edited) 1 hour ago, Matt Allison said: Ron- I haven't read it; can you possibly summarize it for me? Maybe Joe will chime in and provide further quotes or comment but from page 263 . . . First, "for as Penn Jones put it "I just don't believe it's possible for that many smart men to be so ignorant". Regarding Hofstadler. "The essay has been vastly influential, providing the rationale and justification for journalists and other historians ever since to mount their attacks on those who deviate from orthodoxy in writing about controversial historical events". . . . " the phrase paranoid style" or simply "paranoid" have become shorthand for dismissing the conspiracy theorists out of hand." You, and others should read it. Paranoid takes me back to trippin by the lake in my youth. 8 track on an endless loop through the night. War Pigs, Electric Funeral, Iron Man. Edited September 21, 2022 by Ron Bulman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Allison Posted September 21, 2022 Share Posted September 21, 2022 Tony Iommi and his missing fingertips; what a story... Anyway, while I imagine Hofstadler's essay could indeed be weaponized to dismiss conspiracy theories out-of-hand, one must always consider the source, and also recognize that claiming such a thing is always going to be part of the landscape when it comes to the trench warfare of political debate. Indeed, the opposite is also true; whipping out a conspiracy theory when confronted by an inconvenient truth has also become part of the pugilist debater's arsenal. The trick to all of it, IMO, is knowing when you're being informed, and when you're being distracted Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirk Gallaway Posted September 21, 2022 Share Posted September 21, 2022 Most conspiracy theories formed now are because people are politically stupid and can't understand that other people might think differently than them. So just as people use to pass off events they couldn't understand as the work of many Gods, Now every outcome that doesn't favor their objectives is passed off as an ominous conspiracy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Allison Posted September 21, 2022 Share Posted September 21, 2022 Update: Putin speaks! Further update: He's still delusional! My commentary: This is all very sad, because life really didn't need to be this way for him. Or the poor unfortunate people of Russia. It really didn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benjamin Cole Posted September 21, 2022 Share Posted September 21, 2022 3 hours ago, W. Niederhut said: Trump "handled Putin on Ukraine," Ben? On what planet? That's like claiming that Neville Chamberlain "handled Hitler on Czechoslovakia." Trump was Putin's puppet. I'd say that Putin "handled Trump" rather deftly from 2017-21. As for the invasion of Ukraine, you've been all over the map on the issue this year, perhaps echoing the misleading Faux polemics of Glenn Greenwald. W- You have never explained why Putin invaded Ukraine on Biden's watch and not Trump's, given your views of Trump and Biden. In your view, was the Russian invasion of Ukraine inevitable, and would have happened even if Trump had retained the White House? Also, you have mentioned you suspect the Wuhan lab leak was the source of the C19 pandemic. At least we agree on that. What is your explanation of why the M$M not only lied abut the leak, but actively censored or suppressed alternative (and more accurate) views of the leak? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts