Déjà vu. Something Stinks.

Submitted by LaFeminista on Fri, 12/30/2016 - 11:00pm

Matt Taibbi joins the WTF is really going on crowd.

I have been arguing that yet another major misinformation campaign has been going on passed on very thin and dubious information backed up by little or no evidence. Something as dangerous as a country attempting "roll-back" or "regime change" if you prefer via cyber warfare requires some hard evidence. The 13 page document released was a full of basically hot air encapsulated in jargon and conjecture and nothing else. A document this vacuous being used as supporting evidence for diplomatic reprisals should send up warning flares visible to anyone even half awake. Yet the New York Times thundered as if it was all the evidence required, just as they did with WMD that lead to the fiasco that is the Middle East today.

Now back to the Taibbi article a few points stand out:

War rhetoric.

Republican Sens. John McCain and Lindsey Graham noted the "small price" Russia paid for its "brazen attack." The Democratic National Committee, meanwhile, said Thursday that taken alone, the Obama response is "insufficient" as a response to "attacks on the United States by a foreign power."

Building up the outrage

The "small price" is an eyebrow-raiser. Also, like the WMD story, there's an element of salesmanship the government is using to push the hacking narrative that should make reporters nervous. Take this line in Obama's statement about mistreatment of American diplomats in Moscow:

"Moreover, our diplomats have experienced an unacceptable level of harassment in Moscow by Russian security services and police over the last year."

The desired result;

As noted in The Intercept and other outlets, an Economist/YouGov poll conducted this month shows that 50 percent of all Clinton voters believe the Russians hacked vote tallies.

This number is nearly as disturbing as the 62 percent of Trump voters who believe the preposterous, un-sourced Trump/Alex Jones contention that "millions" of undocumented immigrants voted in the election.

The obvious

But we've been burned before in stories like this, to disastrous effect. Which makes it surprising we're not trying harder to avoid getting fooled again.

I recommend reading the whole thing.

Americans really should be asking some basic questions:

Assuming the Russians did "hack" the Democratic Party emails and released them and by the way nobody has disputed their veracity, how did a party's own words bring them down?
How did part of the story move from merely accessing emails via a phishing procedure lead to accusations of hacking voting machines and hence the tally of the actual vote.
After basically accusing the FBI of being a Republican Party agent against Hillary how have they suddenly become a reliable source.
After decades of CIA lies, dirty tricks and misinformation that lead to war, carnage and war crimes they are now believed without question.

It is déjà vu all over again.

My only observation/conclusion in all of this thus far:

If our democracy is sufficiently weak as to be overturned by the release of actual campaign emails then should we not be looking at our democracy's stability itself?
If it is that weak then there is something fundamentally wrong with our system itself, perhaps?
Is the something more nefarious going on here? [Think NDAA 2017]

Our own governments record as a reliable source has been, by its own actions, discredited for decades. Our own governments foreign policy with respect to "roll back/regime change" has been the cause of "why do the hate us" for the same period.

The result of all the propaganda has been that the propaganda itself is taken as valid almost without question. The first question to ask is who owns the media that you rely upon as a source...... The illusion of choice.

People seem now to believe extraordinary claims, justifying extraordinary reactions, without the extraordinary evidence they actually require.

Cyber-warfare can be as at least as harmful as physical warfare itself, and it doesn't even require a farcical AUMF to be launched. It could also lead to actual physical conflict/war.

Anyone pointing out the lack of actual evidence is being labelled as borderline traitorous, does this sound familiar? Ah yes and not that long ago either.

Tags:

A Muse

Vote

Comments

Submitted by Alligator Ed on Sat, 12/31/2016 - 9:53pm

Don't forget Boris or you will be a feminist.

Submitted by Raggedy Ann on Sat, 12/31/2016 - 5:54am

I'm just glad Taibbi is

questioning the whole damn thing out loud. Who else is sending up the red flags? Will more follow until we eke out the truth? We have not been given any actual evidence. Finally, someone is putting it out there. His readership is vast and wide. Putting the element of reasonable doubt about this in the minds of more Americans is key.

—

"The “jumpers” reminded us that one day we will all face only one choice and that is how we will die, not how we will live." Chris Hedges on 9/11

Submitted by LaFeminista on Sat, 12/31/2016 - 6:12am

The sage nodding of heads to this new "common wisdom" being

sold by the "adults in the room".

I just wish that I had invested in tin foil futures in October.

Submitted by Raggedy Ann on Sat, 12/31/2016 - 6:34am

Will the American people be

lulled back to sleep and swallow this hook, line, and sinker? Americans have trusted the government far too long - I was one of them at one time. Those "adults in the room" are nothing more than the "childish bullies on the playground," which we, the people, need to recognize as such and spread the word that this is a snow job.

—

"The “jumpers” reminded us that one day we will all face only one choice and that is how we will die, not how we will live." Chris Hedges on 9/11

Submitted by Steven D on Sat, 12/31/2016 - 10:11am

So, you don't trust our leaders?

[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MC9AjN5l4Gs]

—

"You can't just leave those who created the problem in charge of the solution."---Tyree Scott

Submitted by dervish on Sat, 12/31/2016 - 10:23am

It's funny

When you fill out a US citizenship application, one of the many questions that they ask you is if you've ever advocated for the overthrow of a foreign government, yet the PTB have no trouble at all advocating for "regime change" all over the world.

"Regime change" is Newspeak for calling for the overthrow of a government. It's sedition with a nicer label.

—

"Obama promised transparency, but Assange is the one who brought it."

Submitted by Hetrose on Sat, 12/31/2016 - 10:44am

McCain's endless search...

McCain is still searching for his own "One Hundred Years of War." The big problem with picking that sort of fight with Russia (whatever they have or have not Done) is their Nukes. Careful Johnny, your One Hundred Years War may just turn into the One Hundred Seconds War that ends all wars.

Submitted by ZimInSeattle on Sat, 12/31/2016 - 11:23am

Thanks for the link and essay. Taibbi seems a little unsure

that this is all bullshit CYA by the Dems. Perhaps they are now trying to move on. Their response is so feeble and Putin does not seem to be responding in kind. In fact, I believe much of the world is moving on as the never to be great again USA has been exposed as one big fucking joke. Happy New Year everyone. Hail to the PumpkinFuhrer!

—

"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." - JFK | "The more I see of the moneyed peoples, the more I understand the guillotine." - G. B. Shaw Bernie/Tulsi 2020

Submitted by Nerdsie on Sat, 12/31/2016 - 12:02pm

My whole sense of the vibe is 'meh'

Maybe its who my friends are, or what sites I visit, but I get the impression most people think its a non story. One of the best ways to blunt someone's influence is ignore them. I like this vibe.

Submitted by UntimelyRippd on Sat, 12/31/2016 - 12:22pm

that's not what i'm hearing.

everywhere i go, i'm the one bringing the "meh":

"So, do you really think the Russians were the only ones who were hacking the DNC's emails?"

"So, wouldn't the NSA be failing at their job if they weren't hacking into the emails of foreign political parties? Do you think they aren't?"

"So, how is this any different from any other espionage that we know is going on 100% of the time, and everybody just shrugs and says, yeah, well, that's just how the world works?"

"So, who cares who did it, isn't the real issue the content of the emails? Didn't they do us a favor?"

etc. etc.

The fact that anyone is even talking about this "issue" is an embarrassment to the human race.

—

The earth is a multibillion-year-old sphere.
The Nazis killed millions of Jews.
On 9/11/01 a Boeing 757 (AA77) flew into the Pentagon.
AGCC is happening.
If you cannot accept these facts, I cannot fake an interest in any of your opinions.

Submitted by Big Al on Sat, 12/31/2016 - 12:36pm

We have to talk about it because it's necessary for the

Revolution. I think. Evidently.

Submitted by Alligator Ed on Sat, 12/31/2016 - 9:58pm

Never teach a pig to sing

It annoys the pig.

Submitted by CB on Sat, 12/31/2016 - 12:29pm

Were you around back in 2003 when the war drums had started

quietly beating before rising to a deafening crescendo?
Here's a report by a man who understands how wars are started, John Pilger.

War by media and the triumph of propaganda
Why has so much journalism succumbed to propaganda? Why are censorship and distortion standard practice? Why is the BBC so often a mouthpiece of rapacious power? Why do the New York Times and the Washington Post deceive their readers?

Why are young journalists not taught to understand media agendas and to challenge the high claims and low purpose of fake objectivity? And why are they not taught that the essence of so much of what's called the mainstream media is not information, but power?

These are urgent questions. The world is facing the prospect of major war, perhaps nuclear war - with the United States clearly determined to isolate and provoke Russia and eventually China. This truth is being turned upside down and inside out by journalists, including those who promoted the lies that led to the bloodbath in Iraq in 2003.

The times we live in are so dangerous and so distorted in public perception that propaganda is no longer, as Edward Bernays called it, an "invisible government". It is the government. It rules directly without fear of contradiction and its principal aim is the conquest of us: our sense of the world, our ability to separate truth from lies.

The information age is actually a media age. We have war by media; censorship by media; demonology by media; retribution by media; diversion by media - a surreal assembly line of obedient clichés and false assumptions.
...

Everything is set and ready to go. Just need a trigger.

America tuned out as Congress bangs war drum against Russia
Dec. 7, 2014
...
Resolution 758 was forged in a political furnace of unbalanced, one-sided debate, where American politicians regularly attempt to outdo each other in a lame contest called ‘Russian fear mongering.’ This popular game, which is never out of season, is played among intellectually challenged officials looking for quick political advantage; a bit like Special Olympics for American politicians where everybody goes home a winner.

However, these Russian games are no longer a laughing matter as they were during the feel-good Yeltsin era. Vladimir Putin has shown himself to be a highly competent statesman and whether this fact is responsible for America’s bad mood is difficult to say. Whatever the case may be, judging by the wording of HR 758, America seems to be sliding inexorably towards a ‘war footing’ with Russia.
...
Meanwhile, inside the world of America’s hermetically sealed cauldron of ‘academic Russian studies’ (READ: Sovietology) – a veritable echo chamber where anti-Russian mantras are recited like unthinking prayers – an atmosphere of hostility against Russia has been carefully cultivated for years. There are only a handful of honest US academicians as far as Russia is concerned.

Given this overtly hostile attitude towards all things Russian, it was quite easy for the United States to sell the idea of a dangerous enemy “on the doorstep of NATO” that has some kind of wild desire to recreate an empire.
...

Submitted by TheOtherMaven on Sat, 12/31/2016 - 5:50pm

2003 was the second round

The war drums started before the dust of the Twin Towers had settled on Sept 11, 2001, and they never stopped. Cowboy Bush the Dumber forced the war in Afghanistan, and then shamelessly bungled it to keep it rolling on and on and on. Then he hankered for war with Iraq, partly as insurance in case Afghanistan fizzled out, and partly to "get Saddam" - and the Compliant Media served it up to him on a golden platter.

—

There is no justice. There can be no peace.

Submitted by Nerdsie on Sun, 01/01/2017 - 5:29am

I was, in fact, wasthinking of that specifically

I recall getting into heated arguments about the case for the Iraq war, and everyone, pro or against was fired up about it. Now this is either being ignored, or dismissed as a joke. I take that as hopeful. However, perhaps I am complacent. Thank you for the link to the article! I haven't heard of John Pilger before.

Submitted by CB on Sat, 12/31/2016 - 12:06pm

Something about this Matt Tabbi Story Stinks (badly)

He's gangster-spook-scum of the lowest order and capable of anything.

How many million civilians have been killed, maimed, had homes and futures destroyed by Putin's policies and actions since he has been president of Russia? Frankly, those words can better describe Bush and Obama.

Demonizing a leader is the first step to war:

Demonizing the enemy
Because of the frequent misuse of the term demonization, it is deprived of its potential to be analyzed. That is why Jules Boykoff defined four criteria of enemy demonization:[4]

Both media and state employ frames to portray inherent nature of so-called enemy mostly in moral terms.

The character of the opponent is depicted in a Manichean way, as good against evil.

The state is the origin of such demonological portraying.

There is no significant counterclaim from the state.

You don't think this crap can lead to a serious altercation with Russia? Think again. Google "Russia hacking American utilities" and read Göring's words:

...the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.

Is the fucking country going completely mad again? Even sites like DKos are now caught up in the pounding of the war drums against Russia. Look at the anti-Russian diaries written by staff writer Mark Sumner

One of the few voices of reason comes from Glen Greenwald.

Russia Hysteria Infects WashPost Again: False Story About Hacking U.S. Electric Grid
...
This matters not only because one of the nation’s major newspaper once again published a wildly misleading, fear-mongering story about Russia. It matters even more because it reflects the deeply irrational and ever-spiraling fever that is being cultivated in U.S. political discourse and culture about the threat posed by Moscow.

The Post has many excellent reporters and smart editors. They have produced many great stories this year. But this kind of blatantly irresponsible and sensationalist tabloid behavior – which tracks what they did when promoting that grotesque PropOrNot blacklist of U.S. news outlets accused of being Kremlin tools – is a by-product of the Anything Goes mentality that now shapes mainstream discussion of Russia, Putin and the Grave Threat to All Things Decent in America that they pose.

The level of group-think, fear-mongering, coercive peer-pressure, and über-nationalism has not been seen since the halcyon days of 2002 and 2003. Indeed, the very same people who back then smeared anyone questioning official claims as Saddam sympathizers or stooges and left-wing un-American loons are back for their sequel, accusing anyone who expresses any skepticism toward claims about Russia of being Putin sympathizers and Kremlin operatives and stooges.
...

As far as I'm concerned, Matt Tabbi has half his head stuffed up his ass and THAT is what he is smelling.

Submitted by UntimelyRippd on Sat, 12/31/2016 - 12:53pm

arggh. see my reply immediately below your comment

—

Submitted by UntimelyRippd on Sat, 12/31/2016 - 12:54pm

supposed to be reply to ^^

I don't know. I don't think there's much doubt about what kind of character Putin is. I think the more relevant point is the one you make about Bush and Obama -- that "we" fool ourselves by telling ourselves a lie about who and what our own leaders are. Thus, the somewhat agog responses I used to get when I argued that the only differences between Dick Cheney and Adolf Hitler involved opportunity, necessity, and specific interests. Anyone who thinks Dick Cheney wouldn't have carried out a merciless Holocaust-like genocide of any random ethnic group, complete with cattle cars and gas chambers, had he had:

a. the power
b. any particular reason to do so
c. and confidence he would never be accountable,

just doesn't get it. Dick Cheney would have fed the all the December-born infants of America 2003 to Pele, if it would have furthered his sociopathic objectives and if he could have arranged it.

Nonetheless, I recall back in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, reading an article in the Atlantic that was classic propaganda of the sort you describe. It contained a series of anecdotes from people (one in particular, as I recall) who "had been there" under the Hussein regime. The anecdotes were all intended to demonstrate that Hussein was A, a monster, and B, a delusional megalomaniac. It just left me shaking my head. It was right in line with a book I have on my shelf, published I think in 1940 or 41: I was Hitler's Doctor.

—

Submitted by CB on Sat, 12/31/2016 - 1:45pm

Exactly what kind of character is Putin?

I don't think there's much doubt about what kind of character Putin is.

Submitted by UntimelyRippd on Sat, 12/31/2016 - 3:26pm

a high-grade, highly-competent, ruthless, amoral,

unethical, wielder of power for the sake of wielding power (but also eager to share in the booty). i almost used the term "run-of-the-mill", except of course he is not the run of the mill, he's a custom job, perfectly tailored to the specification. he's the chief gangster in a country that only barely bothers to pretend to be something other than a confederation of crime syndicates (unlike our country, which invests almost all of its public discourse feverishly pretending to be something other than a confederation of crime syndicates). one of the things that really sets Putin apart from other Russian powermongers is that he seems able to function across all the boundaries of the "legitimate" and illegitimate segments of Russian society, and to maintain some level of political authority over the gangster oligarchs who generally don't take kindly to being bossed.

whether or not he entertains any "real", internalized Russian patriotism, nevermind concern for the wellbeing of the average Russian, is impossible to know; if so, it puts him one notch above an evil fuck like Cheney.

—

Submitted by Mark from Queens on Sat, 12/31/2016 - 5:12pm

This Putin-luvin' is weird. Hitchens seemed to nail it in '09.

Thought I'd throw this in here (I'm on the run tonight off to play a gig in Times Sq, of all places - ugh!)

Hitchens was, bar none, one of the most brilliant and enlightened political writers (as a card-carrying socialist to boot) of his generation.

We are watching under Putin "...the conversion of modern Russia into a heavily-armed, aggressive, self-pitying, chauvinistic, theocracy."

—

"If I should ever die, God forbid, let this be my epitaph:

THE ONLY PROOF HE NEEDED
FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD
WAS MUSIC"

- Kurt Vonnegut

Submitted by CB on Sat, 12/31/2016 - 7:22pm

Hitchens in 2014, 2016

PETER HITCHENS: Forget 'evil' Putin - we are the bloodthirsty warmongers
21 December 2014
...
Now I seem surrounded by people who actively want a war with Russia, a war we all might lose. They seem to believe that we are living in a real life Lord Of The Rings, in which Moscow is Mordor and Vladimir Putin is Sauron. Some humorous artists in Moscow, who have noticed this, have actually tried to set up a giant Eye of Sauron on a Moscow tower.

We think we are the heroes, setting out with brave hearts to confront the Dark Lord, and free the saintly Ukrainians from his wicked grasp.

This is all the most utter garbage. Since 1989, Moscow, the supposed aggressor, has – without fighting or losing a war – peacefully ceded control over roughly 180 million people, and roughly 700,000 square miles of valuable territory.

The EU (and its military wing, Nato) have in the same period gained control over more than 120 million of those people, and almost 400,000 of those square miles.
...
I do not know, but there’s no doubt that Mr Putin’s Russia has been a major obstacle to the Gulf states’ desire to destroy the Assad government in Syria, and that the USA and Britain have (for reasons I long to know) taken the Gulf’s side in this.

But do we have any idea what we are doing? Ordinary Russians are pretty stoical and have endured horrors unimaginable to most of us, including a currency collapse in 1998 that ruined millions. But until this week they had some hope.

If anyone really is trying to punish the Russian people for being patriotic, by debauching the rouble, I cannot imagine anything more irresponsible. It was the destruction of the German mark in 1922, and the wipeout of the middle class that resulted, which led directly to Hitler.

Stupid, ill-informed people nowadays like to compare Mr Putin with Hitler. I warn them and you that, if we succeed in overthrowing Mr Putin by unleashing hyper-inflation in Russia, we may find out what a Russian Hitler is really like. And that a war in Europe is anything but fun.
...

Peter Hitchens 'Why I Like Vladimir Putin' at the University of Bristol

The Cold War Is Over
by Peter Hitchens
October 2016
...
Yet the experience of living in that sad and handsome place brought me to love Russia and its stoical people, to learn some of what they had suffered and see what they had regained. And so, as all around me rage against the supposed aggression and wickedness of Vladimir Putin’s Russia, I cannot join in. Despite the fact that Moscow has abandoned control of immense areas of Europe and Asia, self-appointed experts insist that Russia is an expansionist power. Oddly, this “expansion” only seems to be occurring in zones that Moscow once controlled, into which the E.U. and NATO, supported by the U.S., have sought to extend their influence.
The comparison of today’s Russia to yesterday’s U.S.S.R. is baseless. I know this, and rage inwardly at my inability to convey my understanding to others. Could this be because I have been unable to communicate the change of heart I underwent during my more than two years in the Russian capital?
...
The misreading of Russia’s geopolitical situation is especially sad because for the first time in many decades there is much to hope for in Moscow. Out of utopian misery has come the prospect of rebirth. It is as yet incipient. But I see great possibilities in it, in the many once-blighted churches now open and loved and full again, in the reappearance of symbols of pre-Bolshevik Russia, in the growth of a generation not stunted and pitted by poisoned air and food, nor twisted by Communist ethics. Many Russians will never recover from the cynicism they were taught, the mistrust, the contempt for religion and the foul cult of Comrade Pavlik. But their children can, and may. Why then, when so much of what we hoped for in the long Soviet period has come to pass, do we so actively seek their enmity?

Hillary Clinton’s comparison of President Putin to Adolf Hitler in a speech in California in March is the most striking example of this willingness to adopt the most extreme possible language, even by senior figures in government. Diplomats and media follow the same course, squawking about a “New Cold War” and seeking the most alarmist possible interpretation of every Russian action. But much of this NATO-related chatter increases the very fear and tension against which this odd alliance (whose actual purpose was fully achieved in 1991) claims to be defending us. We are now talking ourselves into a conflict for no good reason.

Submitted by Linda Wood on Sat, 12/31/2016 - 8:40pm

I haven't watched the Peter Hitchens video yet,

but I am so glad he makes this point in your quote from him:

But much of this NATO-related chatter increases the very fear and tension against which this odd alliance (whose actual purpose was fully achieved in 1991) claims to be defending us. We are now talking ourselves into a conflict for no good reason.

It's so important for someone to alert us to the fact that NATO was supposed to be protecting us from Communism, not Russia. Instead, the premise seems to be that NATO is there to protect us from Russian aggression, such as its takeover of Crimea. A logical case can be made for that, but Russia is securing its naval base in Crimea from a Nazi terrorist army in Ukraine that the United States funds and, according to reports, also trains! Who is threatening whom?

Submitted by Pluto's Republic on Sat, 12/31/2016 - 9:06pm

Bravo.

I must shake my head at the people here who are in such a rage about Putin. What purpose does your sniping vitriol toward the man serve. Is this a "manhood" thing?

It is positively deranged. As if Putin did something personally to you that broke your mind. If that is so, you must reveal it so we will know you are not mad or brainwashed, beyond all reason.

Check yourself. This is not time time for fools to drag the people into folly. Find your center.

—

IMAGINE if you woke up the day after a US Presidential Election and headlines around the the world blared, "The Majority of Americans Refused to Vote in US Presidential Election! What Does this Mean?"

Submitted by UntimelyRippd on Sun, 01/01/2017 - 12:26pm

Tell it to the Chechens.

This is all the most utter garbage. Since 1989, Moscow, the supposed aggressor, has – without fighting or losing a war – peacefully ceded control over roughly 180 million people, and roughly 700,000 square miles of valuable territory.

Though I'm not sure what that has to do with Putin, whose opinion was not solicited when all of that territory was being ceded.

—

Submitted by CB on Tue, 01/03/2017 - 2:37am

Here's some history on the Chechen wars

First Chechen War started by Clinton's friend Yeltsin.

The Second Chechen War was an invasion launched by Yeltsin, starting 26 August 1999, in response to the Invasion of Dagestan by the Islamic International Brigade (IIB). It ended in May, 2000 when Putin became president but low level insurgency continued.

https://www.un.org/sc/suborg/en/sanctions/1267/aq_sanctions_list/summari...

NARRATIVE SUMMARIES OF REASONS FOR LISTING

In accordance with paragraph 36 of resolution 2161 (2014) , the Al-Qaida Sanctions Committee makes accessible a narrative summary of reasons for the listing for individuals, groups, undertakings and entities included in the Al-Qaida Sanctions List.
QDe.099 ISLAMIC INTERNATIONAL BRIGADE (IIB)
Date on which the narrative summary became available on the Committee's website: 07 September 2010

Reason for listing:

The Islamic International Brigade (IIB) was listed on 4 March 2003 pursuant to paragraphs 1 and 2 of resolution 1390 (2002) as being associated with Al-Qaida, Usama bin Laden or the Taliban for “participating in the financing, planning, facilitating, preparing or perpetrating of acts or activities by, in conjunction with, under the name of, on behalf or in support of” Al-Qaida (QDe.004).

Putin became acting president Dec 31, 1999 (due to Yeltsin being ~~drunk~~ sick) until May 7, 2000, when he became full president. The bulk of the Chechen wars occurred during the presidency of the American darling, Yeltsin.

Since 1989, Moscow, the supposed aggressor, has – without fighting or losing a war – peacefully ceded control over roughly 180 million people, and roughly 700,000 square miles of valuable territory.

Tell it to the Chechens.

1.2 million Chechens, roughly 7,000 sq miles.
Chechnya is a Russian Republic with considerable autonomy. It has its own official language and constitution.

Though I'm not sure what that has to do with Putin, whose opinion was not solicited when all of that territory was being ceded.

Putin/Russia - the two are interchangeable when it comes to denigrating. Just look at the shit going down at DKos.

I'll leave you with this.

Submitted by CB on Sat, 12/31/2016 - 7:30pm

A salad of words repeated endlessly in western MSM

whether or not he entertains any "real", internalized Russian patriotism, nevermind concern for the wellbeing of the average Russian, is impossible to know; if so, it puts him one notch above an evil fuck like Cheney.

Where did you get that crap from? Last I heard Putin didn't have personal death squads conducting extrajudicial killings like Cheney and Obama.

See my post below on Hitchens who has lived and studied in Moscow.

Submitted by UntimelyRippd on Sun, 01/01/2017 - 12:17pm

i do not know what you think is "salady" about that

collection of words. They're all contained in complete sentences that express explicit and trivially parseable concepts. Much of it is a set of fairly straightforward adjectives, characterizing a man who manages to "wield supreme executive power" in a nation where wielding any power at all is an invitation to pretty sharp correction by people who aren't shy about using extreme violence to assert their own seigneurial privilege. if you suppose that anybody could occupy Putin's current position -- nevermind his previous career in the Russian intelligence service -- without being ruthless, amoral and unethical, then i wonder what you think "ruthless", "amoral", and "unethical" mean.

Nonetheless, I was imprecise when I wrote, "one notch", which as written implies that it is the only notch. it might be, or it might not be. Does Putin have "personal death squads conducting extrajudicial killings"? Beats me. I'd be a bit surprised if he didn't, though I don't know enough about the current state of Russian jurisprudence, constitutional or otherwise, to know exactly what "extrajudicial" would entail. What next? Will you be telling me that the CIA is somehow "worse" than the KGB, other than having been somewhat more effective -- mainly, I would argue, because the CIA has had far more resources at its disposal than did those sad mopes at the KGB?

I'm not one of the people that Plutes refers to as being "in such a rage about Putin", but I'm not going to pretend that he possesses some sort of nobility that the western press deviously refuses to acknowledge. He's a motherfucking sonofabitch. If he weren't, he'd be dead by now.

I did find it interesting that you introduced Peter Hitchens as a counterpoint to Christopher. Of course, the two of them disagreed on everything and for many years wouldn't even speak to each other. Peter is a right-wing douchebag of the highest order, whose affection for the current state of things in Russia rests precisely on its being a fascist oligarchy, unlike those of us on the left who viewed with dismay the anarchic race for plutocracy that supplanted the collapsing soviet union. He's a climate change denialist, a christianist bigot, and pursed-lip puritan of the George Will sort.

Despite having thus assassinated his character, I will go ahead and quote PH -- your expert witness, not mine -- from his most recent blog entry:

As I repeatedly say, Vladimir Putin, domestically, is a sinister tyrant.

—

Submitted by Alligator Ed on Sat, 12/31/2016 - 10:18pm

But Putin is not like Obama

he's the chief gangster in a country that only barely bothers to pretend to be something other than a confederation of crime syndicates (unlike our country, which invests almost all of its public discourse feverishly pretending to be something other than a confederation of crime syndicates).

Obama thinks he is in control, at least for the next few weeks, which is part of his self-delusional personality disorder. Putin is all that said above--but he is neither delusional nor stupid.

Does that make V.V. Putin a better foe? Yes, because these kinds of people one can reason with. As long as the two sides have things that the other side wants, a detante of sorts can be arranged. Barack is too involved in looking backward at his illusory "legacy", that he fails to see the dangers lying ahead--or at least to understand them.

Submitted by Jazzenterprises on Sat, 12/31/2016 - 12:56pm

Muse on!

History repeating itself is so silly, especially with matters of war.

The Democrats are really sane Republicans who have just recently lost their minds.

Happy New Year everyone!

—

Progressive to the bone.

Submitted by Amanda Matthews on Sat, 12/31/2016 - 2:03pm

They have to lie. They have no other option unless they want to

Admit how corrupt THEY are. They absolutely have to take America's mind off the revelations of their perfidious betrayals, their corruption, and their lies. Look at the dirt that was exposed about the way they operate and the truth about the lies and backroom dealings of their 'anointed' candidate. This woman is the PERFECT DEFINITION of the term 'money grubbing war whore'. She built an entire career out of pandering to the 1% and the corporate/Pentagon war party and they tried to turn her lying ass into this big champion of the common American while she was going behind our backs having an admittedly 'separate' conversations with the criminals currently running this country. It has now become fashionable to blame this whole mess on white working people because it sounds good to them. Even though the Anointed One has a long history of racist and bigoted behaviour and is pretty pasty white herself. I think the new DNC motto is "no lie is too big, no propaganda too dishonest if it covers our traitorous dishonest asses'.

clip from Daily Mail article

Clinton once said it is necessary to have both a public and a private position on policy, according to the transcript of a 2013 speech included in Clarrk's email.

'I mean, politics is like sausage being made. It is unsavory, and it always has been that way, but we usually end up where we need to be.

'But if everybody's watching, you know, all of the back room discussions and the deals, you know, then people get a little nervous, to say the least. So, you need both a public and a private position.'

https://www.google.com/amp/www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3828097/amp/...

end of Daily Mail article

And then there's the record of betrayals, lies, and the deceit (i.e. NSA spying) that goes back to Clinton I and was kicked into hyperdrive by Obama & Co. They have no choice right now because they've shown their 'true colors' and they are very very harsh and ugly. This is their chosen defence, lie and let the chips fall where they may, but never fess up to their own vile corruption.

Some more backup just for shits and giggles

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-15/here-are-hillary-clintons-three...

EDIT: changed and added on to first paragraph.

—

I'm tired of this back-slapping "Isn't humanity neat?" bullshit. We're a virus with shoes, okay? That's all we are. - Bill Hicks

Politics is the entertainment branch of industry. - Frank Zappa

Submitted by Alligator Ed on Sat, 12/31/2016 - 10:25pm

Now it's official

"no lie is too big, no propaganda too dishonest if it covers our traitorous dishonest asses'.

Barack Obama, fearless Republicans and spineless Democrats have now enacted into law The Josef Goebbels Ministry of Truth. Thus from now on we need not bother ourselves with cogitating upon the "truthiness" of disseminated information, our benevolent governing superiors will have decreed what is truth. End of story.

Submitted by MrWebster on Sat, 12/31/2016 - 1:42pm

Next 20 days will be very dangerous for nation and world

Obama took action against Russia before any evidence was presented to the American people to justify aggressive actions against Russia. Bush unlike Obama at least sent Powell to the UN for the cartoon presentation to justify invasion.

And now that we can see the contents, it is apparent to me that no aggressive actions are justified. The 13 page report was Obama's version of Powell's UN presentation. We are left arguing over an event that no longer matters to the administration and to its rabid Obama and Hillary supporters.

Obama now can and may order actions that could lead to a shoot war with Russia before Trump becomes President. But dangerously, not only Obama but the Pentagon or CIA acting independently. The last attempt at a Syrian truce was openly defied both by the CIA and Pentagon against Obama's orders. It would not surprise me if various military commanders order the shooting down a Russian jet to close off any peace with Russia.

Submitted by Amanda Matthews on Sat, 12/31/2016 - 2:15pm

All that's missing is Obama in front of the UN waving that

report around kvetching about 'proof' that Putin needs to be put down.

—

I'm tired of this back-slapping "Isn't humanity neat?" bullshit. We're a virus with shoes, okay? That's all we are. - Bill Hicks

Politics is the entertainment branch of industry. - Frank Zappa

Submitted by CB on Sat, 12/31/2016 - 2:24pm

The US is the most dangerous nation in the world

Where has the anti-war movement gone? It died under Nobel Peace Prize winner Barack ~~Obomba~~ Obama. How that man is leaving his term as president is disgusting to say the least. Just to rationalize Americans rejecting the worst presidential candidate in favor of the second worst. Obama doesn't even know that he, personally, was partially responsible for this outcome.

Still don't think the US can go berserk and attack Russia on the flimsiest of reasons?

US Has Killed More Than 20 Million In 37 Nations Since WWII
After the catastrophic attacks of September 11 2001 monumental sorrow and a feeling of desperate and understandable anger began to permeate the American psyche. A few people at that time attempted to promote a balanced perspective by pointing out that the United States had also been responsible for causing those same feelings in people in other nations, but they produced hardly a ripple. Although Americans understand in the abstract the wisdom of people around the world empathizing with the suffering of one another, such a reminder of wrongs committed by our nation got little hearing and was soon overshadowed by an accelerated “war on terrorism.”

But we must continue our efforts to develop understanding and compassion in the world. Hopefully, this article will assist in doing that by addressing the question “How many September 11ths has the United States caused in other nations since WWII?” This theme is developed in this report which contains an estimated numbers of such deaths in 37 nations as well as brief explanations of why the U.S. is considered culpable.

The causes of wars are complex. In some instances nations other than the U.S. may have been responsible for more deaths, but if the involvement of our nation appeared to have been a necessary cause of a war or conflict it was considered responsible for the deaths in it. In other words they probably would not have taken place if the U.S. had not used the heavy hand of its power. The military and economic power of the United States was crucial.
...

Submitted by divineorder on Sun, 01/01/2017 - 10:16am

Welp, the hits just keep on coming...

What a terrible idea. Obama moves to arm rebels in Syria w/ anti-aircraft missiles in direct confrontation w/ Russia https://t.co/dVPs4g1u7G

— Abby Martin (@AbbyMartin) December 28, 2016

—

A truth of the nuclear age/climate change: we can no longer have endless war and survive on this planet. Oh sh*t.

Submitted by Alligator Ed on Sat, 12/31/2016 - 10:34pm

CB--We still have a little way to catch up with Hitler

This study reveals that U.S. military forces were directly responsible for about 10 to 15 million deaths during the Korean and Vietnam Wars and the two Iraq Wars. The Korean War also includes Chinese deaths while the Vietnam War also includes fatalities in Cambodia and Laos.

The American public probably is not aware of these numbers and knows even less about the proxy wars for which the United States is also responsible. In the latter wars there were between nine and 14 million deaths in Afghanistan, Angola, Democratic Republic of the Congo, East Timor, Guatemala, Indonesia, Pakistan and Sudan.

But the victims are not just from big nations or one part of the world. The remaining deaths were in smaller ones which constitute over half the total number of nations. Virtually all parts of the world have been the target of U.S. intervention.

The overall conclusion reached is that the United States most likely has been responsible since WWII for the deaths of between 20 and 30 million people in wars and conflicts scattered over the world.

Hitler caused 30 to 50,000,000 deaths. So we should not let ourselves be outdone by a German psychopathic nutcase. Unfortunately for surpassing his record of death and destruction, psychopathic war whore H. Clinton lost the election--but if we're patient another psychopathic warmonger will soon arise in her place (P.SW., I don't think Trump is the one).

Submitted by Bisbonian on Sat, 12/31/2016 - 10:59pm

Add in another (approximately)

10 million native Americans. Oh...you're saying "since WWII". Why? How many did Hitler kill since WWII?

I think the real question is, which is more horrific: that a country would have ONE leader kill somewhere in the eight digit range, or that another country would elect President after President that would follow the same policies, and rack up a similar score, over some 240 years? With no end in sight.

—

"I’m a human being, first and foremost, and as such I’m for whoever and whatever benefits humanity as a whole.” —Malcolm X

Submitted by Alligator Ed on Sun, 01/01/2017 - 12:52am

We, the good ole US of A, have surpassed the Nazis

Because while they had only one Fuehrer, we have had a more or less continuous list of war-mongers and genocidalists in charge. Ain't nothing like consistency is there?

Submitted by Amanda Matthews on Sun, 01/01/2017 - 12:29pm

You obviously didn't get the memo. It's our right to be this way

because we are EXCEPTIONAL! /s

And it shows in the way the rest of the world sees us:

Snip from ijw.com on planet's greatest threat to world peace

As you can see in the map above, most countries — even allies like Australia — chose America as the greatest threat to world peace. All told, 24 percent of worldwide respondents chose America as the greatest threat to world peace. Coming in second, with a whopping 8 percent, was Pakistan.Mar 22, 2015

http://ijr.com/2015/03/279944-country-named-biggest-threat-world-peace/

end of snip

We're NUMBER ONE IN WORLD TERRORISM so crank up the sound machine, put that pork chop Mariah Carey in another skimpy costume, and let her do another equally shit rendition of Auld Lang Syne to celebrate another year of American leadership (by bomb, bullet, and drone) just like all the previous years we spent terrorising innocent people and blowing up wedding parties and hospitals! GOD BLESS AMURIKA!

P.S. Putin is a poopy head and a meanie! Barack Obama, head dronemeister and noted liar, says so.

—

I'm tired of this back-slapping "Isn't humanity neat?" bullshit. We're a virus with shoes, okay? That's all we are. - Bill Hicks

Politics is the entertainment branch of industry. - Frank Zappa

Déjà vu. Something Stinks.

Comments

IMAGINE if you woke up the day after a US Presidential Election and headlines around the the world blared, "The Majority of Americans Refused to Vote in US Presidential Election! What Does this Mean?"

Pages