Megyn - Come up with something concrete that Putin can respond to other than hearsay evidence and opinions. This is one of the worst hack jobs that I have ever seen and thoroughly exposes the monolithic US media and political system as being far from reality based. It has been thus for a very long time now.
It's enlightening to watch the audiences response to this. It's really hard for Russia and Russians to take this attack as anything but nonsense propaganda. The US is the new USSR.
I like when Putin tells her that the US has pushed hard to influence Russian elections (the US definitely was behind the fraudulent election of the drunk Yeltsin) and that this has to stop. That's the real issue here. Projection!
up
0 users have voted.
—
Capitalism has always been the rule of the people by the oligarchs. You only have two choices, eliminate them or restrict their power.
@The Wizard
to push the US propaganda. She came with an agenda. Putin handled it with his usual knowledge and expertise.
Megyn - Come up with something concrete that Putin can respond to other than hearsay evidence and opinions. This is one of the worst hack jobs that I have ever seen and thoroughly exposes the monolithic US media and political system as being far from reality based. It has been thus for a very long time now.
It's enlightening to watch the audiences response to this. It's really hard for Russia and Russians to take this attack as anything but nonsense propaganda. The US is the new USSR.
I like when Putin tells her that the US has pushed hard to influence Russian elections (the US definitely was behind the fraudulent election of the drunk Yeltsin) and that this has to stop. That's the real issue here. Projection!
to do a one-on-one interview with her. It will be shown on the NBC newsmagazine show, "Sunday Night with Megyn Kelly," to run against 60 minutes.
Putin has the ability to cut thru the BS and lay the facts on the table. He's already shown someone like Kelly cannot trip him up.
BTW, Putin is the only politician I know that can answer questions over a 4 hour period w/o the use of a teleprompter. His knowledge is phenomenal as is his presentation.
@CB@CB@CB
I wonder if he'll agree to allow them to edit or if it will have to run in it's entirety.
Could the corporate media actually broadcast such truth to the public?
to do a one-on-one interview with her. It will be shown on the NBC newsmagazine show, "Sunday Night with Megyn Kelly," to run against 60 minutes.
Putin has the ability to cut thru the BS and lay the facts on the table. He's already shown someone like Kelly cannot trip him up.
BTW, Putin is the only politician I know that can answer questions over a 4 hour period w/o the use of a teleprompter. His knowledge is phenomenal as is his presentation.
@Big Al@Big Al
I figure the western media will take parts, leave out certain words and attempt to put a negative spin on it (as they always do). SOP for the propagandists.
The Orange Stain's resident Russian propagandist, Mark Sumner, does it one to two times a week with his diaries. The rif-raf lap it up no matter how patently false it is. Countering the crap from that asshat was one of the reasons I received my BOJO award.
#3#3#3 I wonder if he'll agree to allow them to edit or if it will have to run in it's entirety.
Could the corporate media actually broadcast such truth to the public?
#3.1#3.1
I figure the western media will take parts, leave out certain words and attempt to put a negative spin on it (as they always do). SOP for the propagandists.
The Orange Stain's resident Russian propagandist, Mark Sumner, does it one to two times a week with his diaries. The rif-raf lap it up no matter how patently false it is. Countering the crap from that asshat was one of the reasons I received my BOJO award.
to do a one-on-one interview with her. It will be shown on the NBC newsmagazine show, "Sunday Night with Megyn Kelly," to run against 60 minutes.
Putin has the ability to cut thru the BS and lay the facts on the table. He's already shown someone like Kelly cannot trip him up.
BTW, Putin is the only politician I know that can answer questions over a 4 hour period w/o the use of a teleprompter. His knowledge is phenomenal as is his presentation.
up
0 users have voted.
—
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
How does she get away with stating, to a head of state, in public, the-17-agencies-crap after the agency heads who first promulgated that crap have refuted their own previous report as crap?
… Both former DNI James Clapper and former CIA Director John Brennan acknowledged in sworn testimony last month that the Jan. 6 report alleging Russian “meddling” did not involve all 17 agencies.
Clapper and Brennan stated that the report was actually the work of hand-picked analysts from only three agencies – the Central Intelligence Agency, National Security Agency and Federal Bureau of Investigation – under the oversight of the DNI’s office. In other words, there was no consensus among the 17 agencies, a process that would have involved some form of a National Intelligence Estimate (or NIE), a community-wide effort that would have included footnotes citing any dissenting views.
Instead, as Clapper testified before a Senate Judiciary subcommittee on May 8, the Russia-hacking claim came from a “special intelligence community assessment” (or ICA) produced by selected analysts from the CIA, NSA and FBI, “a coordinated product from three agencies – CIA, NSA, and the FBI – not all 17 components of the intelligence community,” the former DNI said.
And, as Clapper explained, the “ICA” was something of a rush job beginning on President Obama’s instructions “in early December” and completed by Jan. 6. Clapper continued: “The two dozen or so analysts for this task were hand-picked, seasoned experts from each of the contributing agencies.”
… On May 23, in testimony before the House Intelligence Committee, former CIA Director John Brennan confirmed Clapper’s account about the three agencies involved.
“It wasn’t a full inter-agency community assessment that was coordinated among the 17 agencies, and for good reason because of the nature and the sensitivity of the information trying, once again, to keep that tightly compartmented,” Brennan said.
In other words, Clinton’s beloved claim that all 17 intelligence agencies were in agreement on the Russian “hacking” charge – an assertion that the “fact-checking” group Politifact has certified as “true” and that has been repeated endlessly by the mainstream U.S. news media – is not true. It is false. Gee, you might even call it “fake news.”
I guess they're going to keep asserting it, even after the originators of this crap have disavowed it.
I apologize for ranting, but this repeating of a lie until it is accepted, not as truth, but as what they are going to keep saying, regardless of who has refuted it, even the originators, is infuriating.
How does she get away with stating, to a head of state, in public, the-17-agencies-crap after the agency heads who first promulgated that crap have refuted their own previous report as crap?
… Both former DNI James Clapper and former CIA Director John Brennan acknowledged in sworn testimony last month that the Jan. 6 report alleging Russian “meddling” did not involve all 17 agencies.
Clapper and Brennan stated that the report was actually the work of hand-picked analysts from only three agencies – the Central Intelligence Agency, National Security Agency and Federal Bureau of Investigation – under the oversight of the DNI’s office. In other words, there was no consensus among the 17 agencies, a process that would have involved some form of a National Intelligence Estimate (or NIE), a community-wide effort that would have included footnotes citing any dissenting views.
Instead, as Clapper testified before a Senate Judiciary subcommittee on May 8, the Russia-hacking claim came from a “special intelligence community assessment” (or ICA) produced by selected analysts from the CIA, NSA and FBI, “a coordinated product from three agencies – CIA, NSA, and the FBI – not all 17 components of the intelligence community,” the former DNI said.
And, as Clapper explained, the “ICA” was something of a rush job beginning on President Obama’s instructions “in early December” and completed by Jan. 6. Clapper continued: “The two dozen or so analysts for this task were hand-picked, seasoned experts from each of the contributing agencies.”
… On May 23, in testimony before the House Intelligence Committee, former CIA Director John Brennan confirmed Clapper’s account about the three agencies involved.
“It wasn’t a full inter-agency community assessment that was coordinated among the 17 agencies, and for good reason because of the nature and the sensitivity of the information trying, once again, to keep that tightly compartmented,” Brennan said.
In other words, Clinton’s beloved claim that all 17 intelligence agencies were in agreement on the Russian “hacking” charge – an assertion that the “fact-checking” group Politifact has certified as “true” and that has been repeated endlessly by the mainstream U.S. news media – is not true. It is false. Gee, you might even call it “fake news.”
I guess they're going to keep asserting it, even after the originators of this crap have disavowed it.
I apologize for ranting, but this repeating of a lie until it is accepted, not as truth, but as what they are going to keep saying, regardless of who has refuted it, even the originators, is infuriating.
@Linda Wood
Most likely the diary was too old for anyone to notice so I'll repost here.
Kelly obviously has absolutely no historical knowledge of American involvement in Russian politics.
The CIA was first involved in Russia
in 1991 when they broke the KGB and military codes to prevent the 1991 coup by the old guard Soviets and gave the information to Yeltsin.
As soon as the coup started on 18 August 1991, the NSA, America's largest intelligence organisation, was able to decrypt conversations between the coup's two leaders, Vladimir Kryuchkov, chairman of the KGB, and Dmitri Yazov, the Defence Minister, taking place over a supposedly secure landline. President Bush ordered the information to be given to Mr Yeltsin but, fearing Russian reaction if word of American interference leaked out, broke the law by not telling Congress.
The information was of critical significance to Mr Yeltsin at a moment when both sides in Moscow were wooing various military commanders across the Soviet Union. Mr Yeltsin knew exactly who supported the coup and who opposed it.
An American specialist from the US embassy was sent to Mr Yeltsin's office in the Russian parliament building to make sure that his own communications system was secure.
The FSK (forerunner of the FSB) was created in 1992-3 out of the defunct KGB. One of the first things it did was work hand-in-hand with the CIA under Director of Central Intelligence Robert Gates to oust the Russian communist hard liners from Parliament using force in 1993. This intimate relationship lasted until the Ames affair in 1994. This was about the time the FSB was signed into law by Yeltsin. Yelstin appointed ex-KGB Putin as head of the FSB in 1998.
(Take note that even when the Russians and Americans were working closely together, there were elements in the US that wanted to destroy the relationship. Russia HAD to remain the consummate enemy of America. I believe the CIA's Team B was responsible for throwing a wrench into the works at this time, but that's a whole other story.)
"I would like to give a toast. I believe you are all well aware of my background and views as a so-called cold warrior. It is not my wish to go down in history as the first director of central intelligence to come to Moscow to establish a liaison relationship between US and Russian intelligence. I am frankly uncomfortable with any suggestion that my visit might serve to legitimize or recognize the role of the KGB in a democratic Russia. No, I am here today because the relationship between our two countries demands that our intelligence agencies work together in areas of mutual interest. It is time to turn a page in our history, without forgetting our past and present differences, in order to eliminate the threats we face in this new era. I propose a toast for the security and the future of our two peoples."
With these words, as best I can recall them, Director of Central Intelligence Robert Gates ushered in a new chapter in the adversarial, turbulent story of US and Russian intelligence. The September, 1992 DCI visit co-hosted by SVR Director Yevgeniy Primakov and FSB (then FSK) Director Sergey Stepashin was not political theater, nor was it a naive event that ignored the bitter reality of confrontation.
...
When word reached Moscow that CIA traitor Aldrich Ames had been arrested on February 23, 1994, I secretly hoped to be expelled and declared persona non grata so I’d never have to work with Russian intelligence again. The Ames affair was a sensation in Washington. The CIA was being attacked by all sides of the political spectrum. It seemed only logical when Langley decided to sever liaison ties in the aftermath of the arrest of a Russian mole in the CIA. As usual, the emotional entanglements of espionage held both sides in a vise-like grip. Within days of the arrest, a senior CIA delegation announced its intention to visit Moscow in a last ditch effort to negotiate a solution that might avert mass, tit for tat expulsions -- and worse, if the Ames affair was allowed to escalate into a global, spy versus spy war waged in the shadows.
Senior CIA officer John MacGaffin headed the small delegation that descended on SVR headquarters at Yasenevo on the outskirts of Moscow. Traditional pleasantries were curtailed, as both sides got to the heart of the matter. “These things happen.” Primakov shrugged, trying to lighten the mood. “It’s the nature of the business.” MacGaffin flashed a disarming smile, before curtly countering, “Things will get ugly. That’s inevitable. The question is how can we contain the damage? How can we avoid an escalation that could harm the broader, bilateral relationship?”
...
American involvement in Russia and the subsequent rise of Putin is a fascinating story that very few Americans know about. If I had more time it would be worth a series of diaries. Especially in light of Shillary's rants about "Russia stole my lunch and my election."
How does she get away with stating, to a head of state, in public, the-17-agencies-crap after the agency heads who first promulgated that crap have refuted their own previous report as crap?
… Both former DNI James Clapper and former CIA Director John Brennan acknowledged in sworn testimony last month that the Jan. 6 report alleging Russian “meddling” did not involve all 17 agencies.
Clapper and Brennan stated that the report was actually the work of hand-picked analysts from only three agencies – the Central Intelligence Agency, National Security Agency and Federal Bureau of Investigation – under the oversight of the DNI’s office. In other words, there was no consensus among the 17 agencies, a process that would have involved some form of a National Intelligence Estimate (or NIE), a community-wide effort that would have included footnotes citing any dissenting views.
Instead, as Clapper testified before a Senate Judiciary subcommittee on May 8, the Russia-hacking claim came from a “special intelligence community assessment” (or ICA) produced by selected analysts from the CIA, NSA and FBI, “a coordinated product from three agencies – CIA, NSA, and the FBI – not all 17 components of the intelligence community,” the former DNI said.
And, as Clapper explained, the “ICA” was something of a rush job beginning on President Obama’s instructions “in early December” and completed by Jan. 6. Clapper continued: “The two dozen or so analysts for this task were hand-picked, seasoned experts from each of the contributing agencies.”
… On May 23, in testimony before the House Intelligence Committee, former CIA Director John Brennan confirmed Clapper’s account about the three agencies involved.
“It wasn’t a full inter-agency community assessment that was coordinated among the 17 agencies, and for good reason because of the nature and the sensitivity of the information trying, once again, to keep that tightly compartmented,” Brennan said.
In other words, Clinton’s beloved claim that all 17 intelligence agencies were in agreement on the Russian “hacking” charge – an assertion that the “fact-checking” group Politifact has certified as “true” and that has been repeated endlessly by the mainstream U.S. news media – is not true. It is false. Gee, you might even call it “fake news.”
I guess they're going to keep asserting it, even after the originators of this crap have disavowed it.
I apologize for ranting, but this repeating of a lie until it is accepted, not as truth, but as what they are going to keep saying, regardless of who has refuted it, even the originators, is infuriating.
#4
Most likely the diary was too old for anyone to notice so I'll repost here.
Kelly obviously has absolutely no historical knowledge of American involvement in Russian politics.
The CIA was first involved in Russia
in 1991 when they broke the KGB and military codes to prevent the 1991 coup by the old guard Soviets and gave the information to Yeltsin.
As soon as the coup started on 18 August 1991, the NSA, America's largest intelligence organisation, was able to decrypt conversations between the coup's two leaders, Vladimir Kryuchkov, chairman of the KGB, and Dmitri Yazov, the Defence Minister, taking place over a supposedly secure landline. President Bush ordered the information to be given to Mr Yeltsin but, fearing Russian reaction if word of American interference leaked out, broke the law by not telling Congress.
The information was of critical significance to Mr Yeltsin at a moment when both sides in Moscow were wooing various military commanders across the Soviet Union. Mr Yeltsin knew exactly who supported the coup and who opposed it.
An American specialist from the US embassy was sent to Mr Yeltsin's office in the Russian parliament building to make sure that his own communications system was secure.
The FSK (forerunner of the FSB) was created in 1992-3 out of the defunct KGB. One of the first things it did was work hand-in-hand with the CIA under Director of Central Intelligence Robert Gates to oust the Russian communist hard liners from Parliament using force in 1993. This intimate relationship lasted until the Ames affair in 1994. This was about the time the FSB was signed into law by Yeltsin. Yelstin appointed ex-KGB Putin as head of the FSB in 1998.
(Take note that even when the Russians and Americans were working closely together, there were elements in the US that wanted to destroy the relationship. Russia HAD to remain the consummate enemy of America. I believe the CIA's Team B was responsible for throwing a wrench into the works at this time, but that's a whole other story.)
"I would like to give a toast. I believe you are all well aware of my background and views as a so-called cold warrior. It is not my wish to go down in history as the first director of central intelligence to come to Moscow to establish a liaison relationship between US and Russian intelligence. I am frankly uncomfortable with any suggestion that my visit might serve to legitimize or recognize the role of the KGB in a democratic Russia. No, I am here today because the relationship between our two countries demands that our intelligence agencies work together in areas of mutual interest. It is time to turn a page in our history, without forgetting our past and present differences, in order to eliminate the threats we face in this new era. I propose a toast for the security and the future of our two peoples."
With these words, as best I can recall them, Director of Central Intelligence Robert Gates ushered in a new chapter in the adversarial, turbulent story of US and Russian intelligence. The September, 1992 DCI visit co-hosted by SVR Director Yevgeniy Primakov and FSB (then FSK) Director Sergey Stepashin was not political theater, nor was it a naive event that ignored the bitter reality of confrontation.
...
When word reached Moscow that CIA traitor Aldrich Ames had been arrested on February 23, 1994, I secretly hoped to be expelled and declared persona non grata so I’d never have to work with Russian intelligence again. The Ames affair was a sensation in Washington. The CIA was being attacked by all sides of the political spectrum. It seemed only logical when Langley decided to sever liaison ties in the aftermath of the arrest of a Russian mole in the CIA. As usual, the emotional entanglements of espionage held both sides in a vise-like grip. Within days of the arrest, a senior CIA delegation announced its intention to visit Moscow in a last ditch effort to negotiate a solution that might avert mass, tit for tat expulsions -- and worse, if the Ames affair was allowed to escalate into a global, spy versus spy war waged in the shadows.
Senior CIA officer John MacGaffin headed the small delegation that descended on SVR headquarters at Yasenevo on the outskirts of Moscow. Traditional pleasantries were curtailed, as both sides got to the heart of the matter. “These things happen.” Primakov shrugged, trying to lighten the mood. “It’s the nature of the business.” MacGaffin flashed a disarming smile, before curtly countering, “Things will get ugly. That’s inevitable. The question is how can we contain the damage? How can we avoid an escalation that could harm the broader, bilateral relationship?”
...
American involvement in Russia and the subsequent rise of Putin is a fascinating story that very few Americans know about. If I had more time it would be worth a series of diaries. Especially in light of Shillary's rants about "Russia stole my lunch and my election."
@Linda Wood
The headline is This is how Russia interfered with the election
Inside the article is just full of innuendos, but nothing of substance.
And lots of anonymous sources.
But people see the headline and believe that they have made their case.
I have been lmao, but I know that people are buying their propaganda.
How does she get away with stating, to a head of state, in public, the-17-agencies-crap after the agency heads who first promulgated that crap have refuted their own previous report as crap?
… Both former DNI James Clapper and former CIA Director John Brennan acknowledged in sworn testimony last month that the Jan. 6 report alleging Russian “meddling” did not involve all 17 agencies.
Clapper and Brennan stated that the report was actually the work of hand-picked analysts from only three agencies – the Central Intelligence Agency, National Security Agency and Federal Bureau of Investigation – under the oversight of the DNI’s office. In other words, there was no consensus among the 17 agencies, a process that would have involved some form of a National Intelligence Estimate (or NIE), a community-wide effort that would have included footnotes citing any dissenting views.
Instead, as Clapper testified before a Senate Judiciary subcommittee on May 8, the Russia-hacking claim came from a “special intelligence community assessment” (or ICA) produced by selected analysts from the CIA, NSA and FBI, “a coordinated product from three agencies – CIA, NSA, and the FBI – not all 17 components of the intelligence community,” the former DNI said.
And, as Clapper explained, the “ICA” was something of a rush job beginning on President Obama’s instructions “in early December” and completed by Jan. 6. Clapper continued: “The two dozen or so analysts for this task were hand-picked, seasoned experts from each of the contributing agencies.”
… On May 23, in testimony before the House Intelligence Committee, former CIA Director John Brennan confirmed Clapper’s account about the three agencies involved.
“It wasn’t a full inter-agency community assessment that was coordinated among the 17 agencies, and for good reason because of the nature and the sensitivity of the information trying, once again, to keep that tightly compartmented,” Brennan said.
In other words, Clinton’s beloved claim that all 17 intelligence agencies were in agreement on the Russian “hacking” charge – an assertion that the “fact-checking” group Politifact has certified as “true” and that has been repeated endlessly by the mainstream U.S. news media – is not true. It is false. Gee, you might even call it “fake news.”
I guess they're going to keep asserting it, even after the originators of this crap have disavowed it.
I apologize for ranting, but this repeating of a lie until it is accepted, not as truth, but as what they are going to keep saying, regardless of who has refuted it, even the originators, is infuriating.
up
0 users have voted.
—
Which AIPAC/MIC/pharma/bank bought politician are you going to vote for? Don’t be surprised when nothing changes.
@Linda Wood
addressing a controversy that has widespread international ramifications, Kelly tries to play a childish game of "gotcha" with the Russian President. Thus we are treated to the spectacle of a glamorous, sexy TV "personality" acting as the hostile interrogator of a man who is by far her intellectual superior. Ms Kelly is way out of her league here, and the fact that she was specifically chosen to play this high-profile role, says a lot about the abysmal quality of US media management. Putin was remarkably patient with her, if perhaps somewhat disdainful.
How does she get away with stating, to a head of state, in public, the-17-agencies-crap after the agency heads who first promulgated that crap have refuted their own previous report as crap?
… Both former DNI James Clapper and former CIA Director John Brennan acknowledged in sworn testimony last month that the Jan. 6 report alleging Russian “meddling” did not involve all 17 agencies.
Clapper and Brennan stated that the report was actually the work of hand-picked analysts from only three agencies – the Central Intelligence Agency, National Security Agency and Federal Bureau of Investigation – under the oversight of the DNI’s office. In other words, there was no consensus among the 17 agencies, a process that would have involved some form of a National Intelligence Estimate (or NIE), a community-wide effort that would have included footnotes citing any dissenting views.
Instead, as Clapper testified before a Senate Judiciary subcommittee on May 8, the Russia-hacking claim came from a “special intelligence community assessment” (or ICA) produced by selected analysts from the CIA, NSA and FBI, “a coordinated product from three agencies – CIA, NSA, and the FBI – not all 17 components of the intelligence community,” the former DNI said.
And, as Clapper explained, the “ICA” was something of a rush job beginning on President Obama’s instructions “in early December” and completed by Jan. 6. Clapper continued: “The two dozen or so analysts for this task were hand-picked, seasoned experts from each of the contributing agencies.”
… On May 23, in testimony before the House Intelligence Committee, former CIA Director John Brennan confirmed Clapper’s account about the three agencies involved.
“It wasn’t a full inter-agency community assessment that was coordinated among the 17 agencies, and for good reason because of the nature and the sensitivity of the information trying, once again, to keep that tightly compartmented,” Brennan said.
In other words, Clinton’s beloved claim that all 17 intelligence agencies were in agreement on the Russian “hacking” charge – an assertion that the “fact-checking” group Politifact has certified as “true” and that has been repeated endlessly by the mainstream U.S. news media – is not true. It is false. Gee, you might even call it “fake news.”
I guess they're going to keep asserting it, even after the originators of this crap have disavowed it.
I apologize for ranting, but this repeating of a lie until it is accepted, not as truth, but as what they are going to keep saying, regardless of who has refuted it, even the originators, is infuriating.
@Big Al
video of an earlier statement by Putin. In addition to the logic and common sense in so much of what he says, the translation in subtitle form is clearly superior to the voiceover attempts to translate in the midst of his speaking that we hear in the recent one with Megyn Kelly. I would like to read a real transcript of what he said.
VLADIMIR PUTIN: First of all, I did not say that we perceive the United States as a threat. President Obama, as you said, views Russia as a threat. I do not think that the United States is a threat to us. I think that, to use a hackneyed term, the ruling establishment’s policies are misguided. I believe that these policies are not in our interests and undermine trust in the United States, and in this sense they damage the United States’ own interests by eroding confidence in the country as a global economic and political leader.
There are plenty of things we can pass over in silence. But I already said, and Dominique mentioned the same thing too, that unilateral action followed by a search for allies and attempts to put together a coalition after everything has already been done is not the way to reach agreement. This kind of unilateral action has become frequent in US policy today and it leads to crises. I already spoke about this.
President Obama spoke about the Islamic State as one of the threats. But who helped to arm the people who were fighting Assad in Syria? Who created a favourable political and informational climate for them? Who pushed for arms supplies?
Are you really not aware of who is fighting there? It is mostly mercenaries fighting there. Are you not aware that they get paid to fight? And they go wherever they get paid more.
So they get arms and they get paid for fighting. I have heard how much they get paid. Once they’re armed and paid for their services, you can’t just undo all that. Then they hear that they can get more money elsewhere, and so they go there, and then they capture oil fields in Iraq and Syria say, start producing oil, and others buy this oil, transport it and sell it.
Why are sanctions not imposed on those engaged in such activities? Doesn’t the United States know who is responsible? Isn’t it their own allies who are doing this? Don’t they have the power and opportunity to influence their allies or do they not want to do so? But then why are they bombing the Islamic State?
#5
video of an earlier statement by Putin. In addition to the logic and common sense in so much of what he says, the translation in subtitle form is clearly superior to the voiceover attempts to translate in the midst of his speaking that we hear in the recent one with Megyn Kelly. I would like to read a real transcript of what he said.
@Big Al
Putin sounds so calm and rational. He made so many good points to the journalists, but they didn't listened to him. Or if they did, it wasn't reported on msm.
The part where he points out that ISIS was selling the oil to our allies should have made people ask wtf is going on? Why isn't our military stopping those miles long convoys of oil by bombing them? In fact, Putin asked Obama if he wanted the coordinates of where they were. Obama lobbed a few bombs, but not enough to stop them from selling their oil.
That right there tells us that Obama did sit back and watch as ISIS got more powerful. He was hoping that they would remove Assad. Remember when he called them the JV team?
@snoopydawg
One could almost think that the Israeli's were covertly funding ISIS (but that would be CT).
#5
Putin sounds so calm and rational. He made so many good points to the journalists, but they didn't listened to him. Or if they did, it wasn't reported on msm.
The part where he points out that ISIS was selling the oil to our allies should have made people ask wtf is going on? Why isn't our military stopping those miles long convoys of oil by bombing them? In fact, Putin asked Obama if he wanted the coordinates of where they were. Obama lobbed a few bombs, but not enough to stop them from selling their oil.
That right there tells us that Obama did sit back and watch as ISIS got more powerful. He was hoping that they would remove Assad. Remember when he called them the JV team?
@CB
That too shows how phony the war on terror is. To let your enemy sell the commodity that you are trying to get is just so hypocritical.
The government paid protection money to the Taliban. They were paid to let our convoys through and they were full supplies that our military needed to fight them. If that wasn't a circle jerk, I don't know what is.
The biggest circle jerk is arming and funding Al Qaida in one country and fighting against them in another.
They were supposed to be the enemy that attacked us on 9/11 and who we fought against in Iraq.
I need a bingo card to keep up with who's our enemies.
#5.2
One could almost think that the Israeli's were covertly funding ISIS (but that would be CT).
up
0 users have voted.
—
Which AIPAC/MIC/pharma/bank bought politician are you going to vote for? Don’t be surprised when nothing changes.
@snoopydawg
that ISIS supported itself by robbing banks and stealing weapons, ie no foreign sponsors? It was transparent BS, but the MSM talking stooges said those lines with grave sincerity.
#5
Putin sounds so calm and rational. He made so many good points to the journalists, but they didn't listened to him. Or if they did, it wasn't reported on msm.
The part where he points out that ISIS was selling the oil to our allies should have made people ask wtf is going on? Why isn't our military stopping those miles long convoys of oil by bombing them? In fact, Putin asked Obama if he wanted the coordinates of where they were. Obama lobbed a few bombs, but not enough to stop them from selling their oil.
That right there tells us that Obama did sit back and watch as ISIS got more powerful. He was hoping that they would remove Assad. Remember when he called them the JV team?
up
0 users have voted.
—
"Obama promised transparency, but Assange is the one who brought it."
so her entire justification that Assad did it is based on the pictures of the dead. Loved when Putin told her "and you know it" in response to that hot mess. So this is what passes for journalism in America? That's the "proof" is that the dead were killed by sarin and so it HAS to be Assad? I know, we don't do logic, reason or proof anymore but that exchange was stunning.
up
0 users have voted.
—
Only a fool lets someone else tell him who his enemy is. Assata Shakur
@lizzyh7@lizzyh7
about Megyn Kelly stating to Putin that 17 intelligence agencies agreed that Russia hacked. Her statements were made after Clapper and Brennan refuted that claim, under oath, in testimony before Congress.
It's not just that she knows what she's doing, that she's making a false statement to a head of state and to the American people. It's also that she's asserting that it doesn't matter whether it's true or not. It doesn't matter that the highest levels of U.S. intelligence lied to the President and to the American people, or that they were too stupid to know how many agencies were involved in the assessment, or that they lied to Congress when they made the report, or that they're lying now. It doesn't matter. We should believe her, regardless of testimony before Congress to the contrary. It's all horseshit. That's her assertion.
So this is what we should base our foreign policy on, crap like this. They have ZERO CREDIBILITY. And it's what they thrive on, it's what they survive on, it's what they do. And they assert that they have so much power over us, they can lie to our faces and control the world. What a despicable load of crap this is. Not even under GHW Bush did I ever see it get this bad.
so her entire justification that Assad did it is based on the pictures of the dead. Loved when Putin told her "and you know it" in response to that hot mess. So this is what passes for journalism in America? That's the "proof" is that the dead were killed by sarin and so it HAS to be Assad? I know, we don't do logic, reason or proof anymore but that exchange was stunning.
@Linda Wood
"stovepipe" operation, I've regarded US intelligence "assessments" with a jaundiced eye. Faulty IC analysis of the sarin gas attack on Ghouta only reinforced my skepticism. These kinds of public reports can be too frequently and too easily corrupted by politics, to be taken at face value. Especially when they come to us shrouded in the fog of disinformation being peddled by US corporate media.
Of course Megyn Kelly would tout them as being the Gospel truth -- she is after all, likely being paid well to do exactly that. She is not so much an actual journalist, as a star-quality performer.
#6#6
about Megyn Kelly stating to Putin that 17 intelligence agencies agreed that Russia hacked. Her statements were made after Clapper and Brennan refuted that claim, under oath, in testimony before Congress.
It's not just that she knows what she's doing, that she's making a false statement to a head of state and to the American people. It's also that she's asserting that it doesn't matter whether it's true or not. It doesn't matter that the highest levels of U.S. intelligence lied to the President and to the American people, or that they were too stupid to know how many agencies were involved in the assessment, or that they lied to Congress when they made the report, or that they're lying now. It doesn't matter. We should believe her, regardless of testimony before Congress to the contrary. It's all horseshit. That's her assertion.
So this is what we should base our foreign policy on, crap like this. They have ZERO CREDIBILITY. And it's what they thrive on, it's what they survive on, it's what they do. And they assert that they have so much power over us, they can lie to our faces and control the world. What a despicable load of crap this is. Not even under GHW Bush did I ever see it get this bad.
@native
to the IC. It's not the first time that information was falsified and politicized, but it was probably the most egregious and extreme example of it. Hard-working analysts were side-lined in favor of clowns, toadies and sycophants. They still haven't recovered.
#6.1
"stovepipe" operation, I've regarded US intelligence "assessments" with a jaundiced eye. Faulty IC analysis of the sarin gas attack on Ghouta only reinforced my skepticism. These kinds of public reports can be too frequently and too easily corrupted by politics, to be taken at face value. Especially when they come to us shrouded in the fog of disinformation being peddled by US corporate media.
Of course Megyn Kelly would tout them as being the Gospel truth -- she is after all, likely being paid well to do exactly that. She is not so much an actual journalist, as a star-quality performer.
up
0 users have voted.
—
"Obama promised transparency, but Assange is the one who brought it."
Comments
Where's the beef?
Megyn - Come up with something concrete that Putin can respond to other than hearsay evidence and opinions. This is one of the worst hack jobs that I have ever seen and thoroughly exposes the monolithic US media and political system as being far from reality based. It has been thus for a very long time now.
It's enlightening to watch the audiences response to this. It's really hard for Russia and Russians to take this attack as anything but nonsense propaganda. The US is the new USSR.
I like when Putin tells her that the US has pushed hard to influence Russian elections (the US definitely was behind the fraudulent election of the drunk Yeltsin) and that this has to stop. That's the real issue here. Projection!
Capitalism has always been the rule of the people by the oligarchs. You only have two choices, eliminate them or restrict their power.
Kelly used all her "free" questioning time in trying
to push the US propaganda. She came with an agenda. Putin handled it with his usual knowledge and expertise.
She's almost as much an embarassment
as Herr Drumpf. She needs to stay home.
"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
She and Trump are accurate representations
of what the regime is. Fortunately the rest of the world is figuring that out, and will act accordingly.
"Obama promised transparency, but Assange is the one who brought it."
@dervish I hope they understand
I hope they understand that the regime is not the people.
I always understood that about them, so I'm hopeful.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Just found out that Putin accepted an offer from Kelly
to do a one-on-one interview with her. It will be shown on the NBC newsmagazine show, "Sunday Night with Megyn Kelly," to run against 60 minutes.
Putin has the ability to cut thru the BS and lay the facts on the table. He's already shown someone like Kelly cannot trip him up.
BTW, Putin is the only politician I know that can answer questions over a 4 hour period w/o the use of a teleprompter. His knowledge is phenomenal as is his presentation.
That's kind of surprising.
I wonder if he'll agree to allow them to edit or if it will have to run in it's entirety.
Could the corporate media actually broadcast such truth to the public?
Hard to know after Zak's expose of the Saudis
I figure the western media will take parts, leave out certain words and attempt to put a negative spin on it (as they always do). SOP for the propagandists.
The Orange Stain's resident Russian propagandist, Mark Sumner, does it one to two times a week with his diaries. The rif-raf lap it up no matter how patently false it is. Countering the crap from that asshat was one of the reasons I received my BOJO award.
Not sure what you're talking about,
"Zak's expose on the Saudis".
One of the rare moments when western MSM
told the truth to the American people. There was a diary here about this.
https://caucus99percent.com/content/fareed-zakarias-breakthrough-saudi-s...
Thanks. To an extent.
What they leave out sometimes is as important as what they leave in.
Sometimes more.....
Zak = short for Fareed Zakaria — that’d be my guess.
http://infogalactic.com/info/Fareed_Zakaria
@Big Al To my mind, a sign
To my mind, a sign that there's trouble in paradise between the Clinton/Bush/CIA machine and the Saudis.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Deleted
Which AIPAC/MIC/pharma/bank bought politician are you going to vote for? Don’t be surprised when nothing changes.
@CB I bet he did!
I bet he did!
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
What crap!
How does she get away with stating, to a head of state, in public, the-17-agencies-crap after the agency heads who first promulgated that crap have refuted their own previous report as crap?
I guess they're going to keep asserting it, even after the originators of this crap have disavowed it.
I apologize for ranting, but this repeating of a lie until it is accepted, not as truth, but as what they are going to keep saying, regardless of who has refuted it, even the originators, is infuriating.
And they and she know exactly what they're doing
with those questions.
Here's a post I made in another diary this morning.
Most likely the diary was too old for anyone to notice so I'll repost here.
Kelly obviously has absolutely no historical knowledge of American involvement in Russian politics.
The CIA was first involved in Russia
in 1991 when they broke the KGB and military codes to prevent the 1991 coup by the old guard Soviets and gave the information to Yeltsin.
The FSK (forerunner of the FSB) was created in 1992-3 out of the defunct KGB. One of the first things it did was work hand-in-hand with the CIA under Director of Central Intelligence Robert Gates to oust the Russian communist hard liners from Parliament using force in 1993. This intimate relationship lasted until the Ames affair in 1994. This was about the time the FSB was signed into law by Yeltsin. Yelstin appointed ex-KGB Putin as head of the FSB in 1998.
(Take note that even when the Russians and Americans were working closely together, there were elements in the US that wanted to destroy the relationship. Russia HAD to remain the consummate enemy of America. I believe the CIA's Team B was responsible for throwing a wrench into the works at this time, but that's a whole other story.)
American involvement in Russia and the subsequent rise of Putin is a fascinating story that very few Americans know about. If I had more time it would be worth a series of diaries. Especially in light of Shillary's rants about "Russia stole my lunch and my election."
very interesting
- Thanks.
That's easy to do
The headline is This is how Russia interfered with the election
Inside the article is just full of innuendos, but nothing of substance.
And lots of anonymous sources.
But people see the headline and believe that they have made their case.
I have been lmao, but I know that people are buying their propaganda.
Which AIPAC/MIC/pharma/bank bought politician are you going to vote for? Don’t be surprised when nothing changes.
Rather than seriously and honestly
addressing a controversy that has widespread international ramifications, Kelly tries to play a childish game of "gotcha" with the Russian President. Thus we are treated to the spectacle of a glamorous, sexy TV "personality" acting as the hostile interrogator of a man who is by far her intellectual superior. Ms Kelly is way out of her league here, and the fact that she was specifically chosen to play this high-profile role, says a lot about the abysmal quality of US media management. Putin was remarkably patient with her, if perhaps somewhat disdainful.
native
This kind of truth telling isn't new from Putin of course,
remember this one?
[video:https://youtu.be/OQuceU3x2Ww]
Thanks for posting this
video of an earlier statement by Putin. In addition to the logic and common sense in so much of what he says, the translation in subtitle form is clearly superior to the voiceover attempts to translate in the midst of his speaking that we hear in the recent one with Megyn Kelly. I would like to read a real transcript of what he said.
Transcripts of Putin's public speaches are
always available from the Russian government's website.
To find this response you can search for the questioner's name : TOBY TRISTER GATI
http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/46860
Meeting of the Valdai International Discussion Club
Awesome video.
Putin sounds so calm and rational. He made so many good points to the journalists, but they didn't listened to him. Or if they did, it wasn't reported on msm.
The part where he points out that ISIS was selling the oil to our allies should have made people ask wtf is going on? Why isn't our military stopping those miles long convoys of oil by bombing them? In fact, Putin asked Obama if he wanted the coordinates of where they were. Obama lobbed a few bombs, but not enough to stop them from selling their oil.
That right there tells us that Obama did sit back and watch as ISIS got more powerful. He was hoping that they would remove Assad. Remember when he called them the JV team?
Which AIPAC/MIC/pharma/bank bought politician are you going to vote for? Don’t be surprised when nothing changes.
Much of the stolen oil ended up in Israel
One could almost think that the Israeli's were covertly funding ISIS (but that would be CT).
Yes I remember reading that
That too shows how phony the war on terror is. To let your enemy sell the commodity that you are trying to get is just so hypocritical.
The government paid protection money to the Taliban. They were paid to let our convoys through and they were full supplies that our military needed to fight them. If that wasn't a circle jerk, I don't know what is.
The biggest circle jerk is arming and funding Al Qaida in one country and fighting against them in another.
They were supposed to be the enemy that attacked us on 9/11 and who we fought against in Iraq.
I need a bingo card to keep up with who's our enemies.
Which AIPAC/MIC/pharma/bank bought politician are you going to vote for? Don’t be surprised when nothing changes.
Remember when they tried to convince us
that ISIS supported itself by robbing banks and stealing weapons, ie no foreign sponsors? It was transparent BS, but the MSM talking stooges said those lines with grave sincerity.
"Obama promised transparency, but Assange is the one who brought it."
Wow, just watched that second one
so her entire justification that Assad did it is based on the pictures of the dead. Loved when Putin told her "and you know it" in response to that hot mess. So this is what passes for journalism in America? That's the "proof" is that the dead were killed by sarin and so it HAS to be Assad? I know, we don't do logic, reason or proof anymore but that exchange was stunning.
Only a fool lets someone else tell him who his enemy is. Assata Shakur
I'm still livid
about Megyn Kelly stating to Putin that 17 intelligence agencies agreed that Russia hacked. Her statements were made after Clapper and Brennan refuted that claim, under oath, in testimony before Congress.
It's not just that she knows what she's doing, that she's making a false statement to a head of state and to the American people. It's also that she's asserting that it doesn't matter whether it's true or not. It doesn't matter that the highest levels of U.S. intelligence lied to the President and to the American people, or that they were too stupid to know how many agencies were involved in the assessment, or that they lied to Congress when they made the report, or that they're lying now. It doesn't matter. We should believe her, regardless of testimony before Congress to the contrary. It's all horseshit. That's her assertion.
So this is what we should base our foreign policy on, crap like this. They have ZERO CREDIBILITY. And it's what they thrive on, it's what they survive on, it's what they do. And they assert that they have so much power over us, they can lie to our faces and control the world. What a despicable load of crap this is. Not even under GHW Bush did I ever see it get this bad.
Ever since the days of Dick Cheney's
"stovepipe" operation, I've regarded US intelligence "assessments" with a jaundiced eye. Faulty IC analysis of the sarin gas attack on Ghouta only reinforced my skepticism. These kinds of public reports can be too frequently and too easily corrupted by politics, to be taken at face value. Especially when they come to us shrouded in the fog of disinformation being peddled by US corporate media.
Of course Megyn Kelly would tout them as being the Gospel truth -- she is after all, likely being paid well to do exactly that. She is not so much an actual journalist, as a star-quality performer.
native
The Iraq war did catastrophic damage
to the IC. It's not the first time that information was falsified and politicized, but it was probably the most egregious and extreme example of it. Hard-working analysts were side-lined in favor of clowns, toadies and sycophants. They still haven't recovered.
"Obama promised transparency, but Assange is the one who brought it."
"We saw the video of the suffering, dying children
and that's why Trump dropped the bomb."
Wow.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver