the Lincon Project is old neo-cons. You might like the Iraq war they gave us. over one million dead and several million displaced.

I had a realization....at some point, the Trump chumps are going to claim letting the pandemic hit us worse than anywhere else was intentional and goading police into intolerable racist violence daily was intentional...Both super smart ideas by a genius. They're both campaign promises being kept, because with America a dumpster fire, Mexico is far more likely to build that wall and pay for it.
Remember when a $70 billion dollar useless and ecologically apocalyptic "wall" that he insisted America wouldn't pay for but did was an unthinkable waste of taxpayer money? Too bad we won't have an accounting of his last year in office on election day, I bet he's added at least $7-8 trillion to the debt this year so far, and we're only 1/2 way through the year. Of course, he'll lie and claim it only went up $1.5 trillion (keeping most off the books like the Iraq war under Bush) and only that much because of the depression he caused, the one he blames on Barak like he's still the active president....oh, how we all wish that were true.

TL:DW- but Pence is now claiming all the "don't worry, everything's fine, it will just go away, it's not as bad as the average flu and flu shots are protection" talk from Trump was merely optimism....so hundreds of thousands - millions of Americans will die because Trump was optimistic, and based his administration's actions on his optimistic and ignorant pie in the sky high hopes, not the reality he was being told from all sides back in 2019.
Odd, when Clinton based her actions/inactions on an optimistic estimate of the safety of our embassy based on actual intelligence reports, 99% of Republicans wanted her in prison until her public execution because her decisions cost American lives.

Who's optimism cost more American lives? To date, it's Clinton 4-Trump 5500 (expected to rise to a minimum of 100000-250000 in the coming weeks). Trump's optimism is going to be more deadly to America than 9-11, the Iraq war, and the Afghanistan war combined...10-25 times more dead by the most optimistic predictions based on 100% compliance with social distancing and no surprises.
Trump's incompetence has now risen to the level of being the deadliest man in America ever by far. If he's a wartime president like he's labeled himself, these are war crimes. String him up, string him up, string him up......

I try and choose my words carefully, it looks like you are still responding to what you think I must mean, rather than what I said. You say you thought I meant jr and the recent war in Iraq when I reference Saddam’s invasion of Kuwait. I was in fact referencing no particular Iraq war, but the overall condition Iraq is in(as per the video and my own earlier reference to same. Maybe some room to misunderstand that, but my full quot if you can read it carefully this time:
“blaming Bush Sr. for Iraq, rather than Saddam's campaign of genocide against his own people and his conquest of Kuwait.”
I did specifically name Bush Sr, which At the least should rule out thinking I’m discussing anything done by Jr.

As for Sr’s war in Iraq, Kuwait was a province of the Iraqi state when Senior came in to liberate it. He also stopped short of removing Saddam, which was imo a mistake for Iraqi’s and the one thing I’d agree would be a fair accusation against him re the overall consition of Iraq today. It left Saddam time for another genocide against the Shia Iraqi’s that had risen up thinking Senior was serious about standing with them. Public opinion though was too much against it and so American forces stopped short of removing Saddam and followed popular opinion. Saddam’s WMD programs where dismantled(which he very much had then) and northern Iraq’s airspace remained occupied by Anerican forces right through until jr’s war. Saddam also continually decieved, obstructed and kicked out the UN inspectors in Iraq there to confirm his full and continued disarmament. Enough so that before jr’s war one of the most vocal anti-war inspectors cited Saddam’s almost certain possession and use of chemical weapons as a reason risking an invasion was too dangerous...

I feel like I'm in a time warp here.

As far as I understand it that is exactly what they are saying about the Russian hacks too, they have no clear link to the Kremlin. I'm not saying they didn't do it but there is a clear smell of witch hunt going on.

What I find especially galling is Robert Mueller was FBI director at the time of the Iraq war and he was using the exact same language about how clear the evidence for WMDs was.

I must say I believe, and hope I'm right, that the crowd that sees this and says that looks great is a lot smaller than you believe.

Controversy might be more numerous around the anti-war crowd citing Abu-Ghraib as proof the Iraq war in it's entirety was wrong and evil. There are a lot of people who observe that Saddam did much worse, for much longer, and as standard desirable practice of governance, myself included. I dare say the number of people believing that greatly outnumber the pro-torture crowd.

Still important for America to hold itself more accountable on this. Am I not wrong but most of those involved who even were charged mostly got off with dishonorable discharges?

Your video, Full Frontal - Iraq War: 15 Years Later, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Research better...$7.5 Trillion+- not $10, and mostly due to lost revenue and excess spending from the Republican caused depression. (Caused by lax and removed bank regulations, then bail outs by Bush with federal funds). Also, let's not forget the Iraq war, kept off the books by Bush, then added to Obama's deficit numbers.

Where was I? Here, stating it's ridiculous to raise the military budget by $100 Billion/year (what Republicans call a huge cut to the military) when our economy is tanked.

By percentage, republicans have consistently raised the deficit/debt more than Democrats, who actually lowered it under Clinton. Reagan was by far the worst.

@eric3579
agreed,and i suspect most people struggle with this,but i think he made a really important point that we all need to address,and that is our own bias.

too many people for far too long have sought information that aligns with their own narrative,their own,personal and subjective understandings.we see those who identify as conservative reject anything that does not adhere to their own,narrow worldview,and we see those who identify as progressive do the exact same thing.

and yet if challenged,BOTH will stubbornly declare that their information is solid and without reproach.this is statistically impossible.

another great point he makes is how some people have been conditioned to accept opinion and conflict as somehow being "news".

he also makes a point on how some news outlets have done shoddy and poor work,but we should not throw the baby out with the bath water.while this may be true,i feel he was far too lenient on those who profess to be journalists.he gives them a pass for doing mediocre work,because that is what many journalists do in this new climate of:partisan hackery,access and propaganda.

so when we talk about "mainstream media",we are talking about only a few,monolithic corporations who DO have an agenda,and that agenda is PROFIT.

so we can look back to the run up to the iraq war,and see how phil donahue was fired from MSNBC for being critical of the war.the highest rated show on that network at that time.so if PROFIT is the model,then donahue being fired makes no sense..UNLESS you consider that the owners of MSNBC were general electric,who at that time were heavily invested in military contracts on the dawn of a new war.

so the profit was not from advertising from donahue's show,but rather the billions in defense contracts general electric was poised to receive from the impending iraq war,and donahue's criticisms of that war had the possibility to affect the profits of general electric.

and that is the one point that is missing from mr green's take on the mainstream media:their inability or outright refusal to criticize the current corporate establishment,and how many journalists kneel at the altar of their corporate masters.

so while he makes a lot of great points.that particular glaring omission is disturbing.

speaking only for myself i tend to only consume independent media,and focus on journalists who have earned my trust.

ultimately it is up to us to decide who we trust and who we are suspicious of,and to discuss those important issues among ourselves to better refine our understandings.

@bcglorf
you left out that anwar had worked for the CIA and NSC as a consultant,and that in his earlier days as an imam was critical of al qeada and was very pro-american.

look,i am not arguing the fact that anwar did become radicalized,nor am i denying that his shift in attitudes (which was mainly due to americas handling of the iraqi war) had become not only critical,but had gone from condemnation to calls for violence,and praise for violence.

which brings us to the fort hood shooter nidel hasan who was an avid fan of anwar al awlaki,and DID have a correspondence with awlaki.which when examined,was pretty fucking one sided.it was apparent that hasan was attempting to get in the good graces of awlaki who,evidenced by the email correspondence,had no real relationship with hasan.though awlaki did praise hasan,and his violent actions.

so i do not get where 'the emails are closed".just google nidal hasan and anwar al awlaki emails,and you can go read for yourself.

and as for these emails as justification..i really do not see your logic in this respect.

so if someone becomes a huge fan of mine,and emails me constantly because we met ONCE and now they think we are buddies and share common interests (which,maybe we do),and that person perpetrates a violent act.

am i responsible for that act?

and here is where the crux of the discussion REALLY is:
maybe i AM responsible.
maybe i am guilty of inciting violence.
maybe i should be held accountable,because not only did i keep this mans violent intentions to myself,which resulted in death,but then praised his actions afterwards as being the will of god.

there are ALL possibilities,and they are valid questions.
they are legal questions,and maybe there should be a legal accountability.

should the proper pathway to a legal conclusion be:
a.a remotely piloted drone that targets my phone and launches a missile murdering (assasinating0 me,along with innocent by-standers?

or.

b.working with the yemeni government to bring me into a secure facility to be questioned,and possibly charged with inciting violence and prosecuted in an international court of law?

do you see what i'm saying?

the question isn't if anwar al awlaki,as a prominent imam,was vocally against american foreign policy,or that he openly supported violence in the form of terrorism.

the question is:
how do you address that situation,and prosecute the legalities?

because as scahill posited:how do you surrender to a drone?

could anwar al awlaki be guilty of EVERY charge the US accused him of?
quite possibly.
but we will never know because he was assassinated,as was his 16yr old son.

even your counter argument is speculation based on loose affiliations,and tenuous connections.

you will NEVER be able to supply a concrete,and verifiable accounting of anwar al awlaki's guilt,because you CAN'T..he was assassinated.

and THAT is the point.

now let us take this a step further.
let us examine how this can be abused,and watching trump consolidate executive power by surrounding himself with departmental loyalist,loyal only to him,we can begin to see the beginnings of trumps "soft fascism".

now lets take how you made your argument,and supplant a different scenario,but using the same parameters.

do you SEE how easily the drone program could be used to quickly,and efficiently remove opposing political players from the board? dissenting and opposing voices simply painted as violent enemies of the state that were in need of removal,because of the "possibility" that they may one day actually incite or cause violence?

the state can now murder a person for simply what they say,or write but NOT what they actually DO.

anwar al awlaki didn't actually kill anyone,didn't perpetrate any acts of violence.he simply talked about the evils of american empire,the mishandling of the iraq war (which he was originally in support of) and praised those who DID engage in violent acts of terror as doing the work of god.

should he have been held accountable in some fashion?
i think there is case to be made in that regard,but instead of going through proper channels,and adhering to the protocols of international law,he was outright assassinated.

and just how easily this can be abused is incredibly frightening.

again,i understand we approach things from different angles,but you have to see the danger in this practice,and how easily it can be misused to much darker and sinister purposes.

"well,he said nasty things about us and had a lot of friends who were on the terror watch list"

is simply NOT a valid enough excuse to simply murder someone.

there are protocols and legal procedure for a REASON,and anwar al awlaki may certainly have been in breach of international law and therefor possibly SHOULD have been prosecuted under those terms.

but we will NEVER know,because he was killed.
by an american president.
a nobel peace prize winner and constitutional law professor.

anwar al awlaki was an american citizen,his SON was an american citizen,but due to those abominations:MCA of 2006 and the NDAA of 2012.obama had the power and authority to assassinate them both.

where was there right to face their accuser?
habeas corpus..gone...a legal right that dates back to 1205 a.d by the BRITISH..gone.
innocent until proven guilty....gone.
the right to provide evidence in your defense...gone.

all the president has to do..and DID in this case,is deem you an "enemy combatant" and BOOM..dead.

i really hope you reconsider your attitude in this case my friend,because this shit is fascism incarnate,and now trump has his chubby little fingers on the "fire" button.

god help us all......

Keep in mind, it's not JUST the CIA making these claims, it's an unprecedented combined report from (I think) 14 separate (EDIT: 17) intelligence agencies. Yes,they may be colluding but it's not likely.
Recall, the intelligence reports leading to the Iraq war were edited and misstated by the Bush cabinet and we've now seen that the full reports were not certain about evidence of WMDs.
Putin's own MO is evidence that, if there was Russian government involvement, it was at his direction. If it were done behind his back, there would be a number of computer scientists gone missing by now.

In short, don't blindly trust any agency, but don't distrust conclusions reached by all intelligence agencies combined, or pretend that the public report is all they have....most evidence possible would be classified (like a bug in Putin's office recording him ordering hacks, we would never hear about that proof).
Should we be skeptical, yes, should we dismiss the reports because we don't get to see classified proof, no. Should we find a way to declassify the proof, absolutely, the public's trust in the nation's intelligence community hangs in the balance.

29 comments, most of them rather long and more-or-less well reasoned, yet none about the content.

I get if you don't trust RT. It's a propaganda outlet of a foreign government, after all. But RT is not Chemical Ali style of propaganda: it is solid, well-researched reporting on many topics, subtly slanted on others, and completely balls-to-the-wall denial of reality on others again.

You want to take that as a reason to ignore it entirely? Knock yourself out.

I won't. Which isn't saying much, because I prefer text over video.

Anyway, they regularly offer a valuably "Korrektiv" with regards to reporting in the mainstream media. Of course I would prefer if I could get that from a less-dubious outlet like, maybe, the Indepedant, or the NZZ, but I can't.

Let's talk about the content of this clip, shall we.

Hedges references the Prop-or-Not pieces run by the WaPo. Does anyone here disagree that those were a total and utter smear job? Painting Truthout, Truthdig, Counterpunch, Alternet, BlackAgendaReport, NakedCapitalism and others as stooges of the Kremlin is such an obvious attempt to discredit dissenting voices that it's, quite frankly, rather offensive. Yves Smith and Glen Ford as mouthpieces of the Kremlin... my ass cheeks.

On the other hand, quite a lot of journalists in the US seem to have embraced the Red Scare with open arms, seeing as it gives an excuse as to why their previous HRC lost against the orange-skinned buffoon. Kyle illustrated it nicely with Rachel Maddow.

Second point: they had James Clapper present the report. Seriously? The fucker was caught lying under oath during the initial stages of the NSA revelations. Wasn't the fuckface also in charge of the satellite reconnaisence prior to the Iraq war, who could have presented imagery that debunked the claims of WMD "factories", and decided not to? He is just as trustworthy as Chemical Ali, but less entertaining.

Third: half the report was about RT. Why? I thought it was meant to outline how they "hacked" the election? What does their propaganda outlet have to do with that? And the critique they presented... has anyone read the passage about the "alleged Wall Street greed"? They are having a laugh, and people take it seriously.

Fourth: it distracts from the aspects of HRC's loss they don't want to be a subject of public discussion: class issues. They offered nothing for the working class, who got a shoddy deal over the last decades, and tried to focus entirely on identity politics, completely denying even the existence of class issues. Which is also why it's now the "white, male worker" who is to blame. Nevermind that >50% of white, female workers also voted Trump. Nevermind that significant portions of non-white working class folks also voted Trump. Can't be. According to the narrative, these people are minorities first, working-class second, and identity politics always trumps class politics. Except it didn't.

All this rage at the "deplorables", the "less educated"... it just reeks massively of class bigotry. Those plebs decided to vote for someone other than our beloved Queen HRC? How dare they...

And finally, RT's own part of this segment, about the credibility of the intelligence community's claims. Any disagreement on this? Anyone? Anyone think the torturers at the CIA are trustworthy enough to take their word without hard evidence?

I hate disagreeing with you, but I come at things differently. When I find an individual or new outlet is willing to wilfully obstruct and manipulate the truth, I stop trusting them and rarely waste my time with listening to it anymore. In the rare instance they have a story that seems important that isn't sourced anywhere else, or something otherwise unique I'll sometimes look, but always fact checking what is said. The amount of time that can be wasted on fact checking is why I largely dismiss strongly biased sources.

Fox and MSNBC are good examples, but RT puts them to shame.

Chris Hedges I was only familiar with in name, and not reputation. The fact he was speaking on RT was enough for me to dismiss him out of hand. The fact you seemed to think he was a lone credible individual got me to look further.

On looking further I'd encourage you to read Hedges own work form Nov 8, 2001:
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/08/world/a-nation-challenged-the-school-defectors-cite-iraqi-training-for-terrorism.html

Despite the fact he's appeared earnest and genuine in the instances you've seen him, and despite him seemingly bravely standing against the American administration and it being an act of character to speak out against the war, the above article seems to reveal Chris Hedges true nature. He was a paid lackey of American propaganda to prop up the lead in to the Iraq war, but at some point afterwards Russia paid better and now he's singing the tune of the current highest bidder.

I wish I could say I'm surprised to find it, but an RT report or opinion piece on why Russia is innocent of something turns out to be being forwarded by somebody clearly willing to be completely two faced when the money is good.

@newtboy
i agree in theory,but disagree in practice.
as i stated in my comment:discernment.

it appears we approach news and journalism differently.

i do not consume the institution,but rather the individual reporter.which is why i will watch a report by shepard smith from FOX,but ignore anything by tucker carlson or bill o'reilly.

the HUGE mistake you make about hedges,is just that,an assumption.

chris hedges mistake.
is the same mistake that other media personalities have made,such as cenk uynger when he was on MSNBC.

hedges criticized power.
in fact,in the run up to the iraq war hedges was pushing out story after story that was highly critical of the bush administration,and..ironically..was using the very intelligence reports that you mentioned.he was challenged by the new york times editorial board to either cease and desist,or face disciplinary action.

he chose to retain his integrity,and honor his father (great story right there,he always chokes up when telling it) and walked away from a successful career,full of adulation and respect,rather than bow at the foot of the kings throne and kiss the feet of the powerful.

the man has guts,in spades,and i admire him very much.

but if you think my opnion is biased,then let us take phil donahue who was hosting the most popular show on the newly founded MSNBC.

he too,was critical of the bush administration and had guests on that were countering the avalanche of white house narratives flooding the cable news networks.

he was fired,while simultaneously hosting the most popular and highest rated shows on MSNBC.

what i am saying,is exactly what hedges is saying:
criticize power and you will be branded,blacklisted and shunned from the "mainstream media".you will be relegated to the fringe for your defiance to power.

/chuckles..i find it interesting that pretty much everybody uses the term "mainstream media" to epitomize:lazy journalism,propaganda,fake news and yet the media THEY choose to consume..well...thats not mainstream at all.the media THEY choose to consume is top notch journalism.

i am not saying my choices are right,but i do choose them carefully.i do not subscribe to institutions but rather individuals who have proven the test of proper journalistic integrity:chris hedges,matt taibbi,bill moyers,henry giroux,laura poitrus,jeremy scahill,amy goodman,paul jay

you may notice that every one of these people are critical of power,and that..my friend..is the basic premise of the fourth estate.

the washington post,along with the new york times and wall street journal have become rags.just my opinion,feel free to disagree.

They actually used this during the iraq war to coat buildings in certain locations. Bet it's still being used for all sorts of military uses. Look forward when they can make it clear.