@ChaosEngine

um...is your comment missing some parts that you forgot to type?
or was it a typo?

when did i deny that a chemical attack actually occurred?

my skepticism is in regards to american corporate media slavishly regurgitating the narrative coming out of the white house.

that the assad regime attacked his own people with sarin gas,and a complicit media which has uncritically jumped on board the "assad bad-america good" bullshit train.

or do i REALLY need to point to iraq,or even libya for that matter.

as for the rest of your comment.i see no reason to contradict a negative.i simply never made a claim against those organizations.

you are free to believe what you wish my friend,i will remain skeptical.

and i think history backs my skepticism.

I've been wondering about the pipeline theory, it would be much easier for them to tie into Iraq's pipeline systems and just go through Turkey, wouldn't it? Who would think a pipeline through non friendly territory would work? The Syrians could sever it at will.
As a distraction, it could work temporarily, but it opens Trump up to more, new, constitutional issues on top of international ones and only distracts from the Russian debacle temporarily.
No matter what, you're correct, it's a total shit show.

Don't worry, lots of soldiers in Iraq roll around on the ground saying "help me, I'm hottt." We all go through that phase.

Hitchens attacks the left, as well. In case you conservatives feel like shying away from his bias. His bias is history, as difficult as that is to swallow. History is filled with inconvenient truths.

Interesting what he says about the war in Iraq... If only he had lived a little longer to see what it lead to. Will it turn out well in the end?

@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......

Yes, I agree, Assad would be replaced tomorrow if he went against Putin, but he won't. He knows who butters his bread.

I don't think a targeted assassination was what Obama meant when he drew his red line in the sand over Assad gassing civilians. I expected, say, a no fly zone or US bombings of Assad's troops and headquarters, assisting the rebels without arming them. Agreed, that would be NO guarantee that another despot or worse wouldn't fill the void in power.
Perhaps the 'democratic" alternative would be separating Syria into 2 or more countries with local rule? That seems like it would have been better in Iraq than what happened.
Best would be if we could just stay out altogether and let them sort it out themselves, but that seems an impossibility for numerous reasons.

Strangely, the thing that seems to be most important in stopping nuclear war with Russia is Trump's outrageous friendly relationship with Tsar Putin, because he's already made it clear that he has no qualms about using nukes against those he thinks are enemies.

Do you have to demonize a man who assassinates his enemies and expands his country? There's no question that he's done those things, so I don't get his point at all. You don't have to demonize a demon.

How does he think he knows what classified proof there may be? His statement makes him seem silly, he's complaining he hasn't seen this proof, knowing he shouldn't be able to see it.

Russia incontrovertibly militarily and financially supports our enemies and attacks our allies. That alone makes them threat #1. Period. They are also expansionist on multiple fronts, which is hyper threatening.

It's only unwise to build up Polish border forces if you want Poland to be Russian.

Be clear, Putin didn't "put Trump into the whitehouse", but he certainly helped. The argument that he didn't just install him is a red herring, designed to distract from the legal and illegal things Russia did to effect the election, a plan that worked better than they ever hoped.

Fake news hysteria?!? Fake news is one of the most important issues today, because it denies progress on ANY other issue by confusing the facts, making negotiation impossible.

I hate hearing about Bakers "promise"....it wasn't in writing, it wasn't from America or NATO, it wasn't binding in any way even then, and thinking we should stand by it in the face of Russia breaking treaty after treaty is just insane and naïve. Remember, Russia promised to never invade Ukraine (including Crimea).

I don't really think Aleppo was liberated....there's nothing left to liberate there but rubble.
Really, he's claiming that when Mosul was "liberated", Iraq just let the enemy drive away? That's bullshit. We have bombed the fleeing militants, and the Iraqi have fought them with vigor this time.

For a professional on US, Russia relations, he's got some strange ways of seeing things.
I do agree with him that, to Russia, bolstering Assad IS fighting terrorism. I think we failed miserably when we didn't take Assad out after he gassed the populace AND support/safeguard the local populace (if not their militias)....no question in my mind, that's when we lost Syria. Once Daesh and others were allowed to take over the anti-Assad side, there was no "winning" that war.
I also agree, with our current leaders, the nuclear safeguard is no safeguard at all, it's a sword of Damocles, not a shield.

Nope, me neither.

Which is sort of the point. It's unheard of that all of these agencies came to the same conclusion on a specific matter. Some may take this as an indicator of how damning the evidence really is, others see this as an indicator that the "assessments" were made on hierarchical levels reserved for political appointees.

The absence of dissent supports the second point of view. No group of analysts in their right mind would create a report without also strongly pointing out contradictory facts, inconsistencies, and separating fact from interpretation. That's what Hersh is referring to. This is not an NIE, it's an opinion piece. This memo by the Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (wierd name) goes down the same route:

As you will have gathered by now, we strongly suspect that the evidence your intelligence chiefs have of a joint Russian-hacking-WikiLeaks-publishing operation is no better than the “intelligence” evidence in 2002-2003 – expressed then with comparable flat-fact “certitude” – of the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

Now, an opinion piece might be sufficient if it came from credible institutions and had a moderatly important subject. But this is throwing serious accusations at a sovereign nation in times when diplomatic relations are stressed as it is. And that's not going into the credibility problem of many of these agencies, who have a very dubious track record on these issues.

Ian Welsh had a piece the other day on the CIA vs Trump, and his take on intelligence agencies is pretty close to what mine has been since I learned about the Stasi some 20 years ago:

The CIA and NSA are not the friend of any left-wing worth having: they are innately anti-democratic, anti-privacy, and anti-rights. Secret agencies are anathema to any open government. At an existential level, intelligence agencies are at best a double edged sword, and by their nature, they always wind up serving the interests of the few, against the interests of the people.

@Fairbs
i agree that trump is dangerous.i am reading david cay johnstons "the making of donald trump"...and boy oh boy...

i viewed trump as a used car salesman,a circus barker but he is worse..far worse.

as for obama acting on russian interference,and the fact that nobody is pointing out the obvious...is just depressing to me.

the ability for a president to do that never existed until GW and his merry band of neo-cons.

but thanks to addington and woo,the president has the power to do,what previously took approval from congress.

as i told newt,IF the russians DID hack and therefore influence our elections,then this would equate to two things:
1.this is an act of war.
2.the election would be considered compromised,and trumps presidency would be illegitimate.

i am confident that there was cyber-spying going on.all nations engage in this tactic,and as dore points out,we even spy on our allies.we can safely assume that along with the spying,there was hacking,again...all nation states participate in this tactic.

but as of now there is NO evidence that putin directed russian intelligence to hack the 2017 election in order to put in his muppet trump.

so until such time as they provide such evidence.
i will remain skeptical.
would not be the first time intelligence reports have been manipulated to politicize a cause.

see:iraq
see:vietnam
see:korean war
see:panama

shall i continue?

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.

Why do people treat euphoria like a NEGATIVE side effect?

If I hurt my back and am bed-ridden, if I have chronic headaches, if I watched all my friends die in Iraq when I was deployed; I might be depressed about any of those things, and getting a euphoric feeling might be the only thing keeping me going.

Some people might say that being dependent on a drug for happiness is a bad thing, BUT I don't see how that's different from people who take Zoloft every single day of their lives.

p.s. Finally something I can agree w/ @bobknight33 on

p.p.s. Listening to some music after a hard day's work with some THC in my system is something I miss on a very regular basis.

No prob, I was just wondering.
Oh...I'm sorry you took it that way. I gave her a pass on this story alone, and only on the specific detail that she didn't say what the commentator claimed she did, but she did IMPLY what he said, and to those that don't listen closely, that's likely what they heard. I did not "buy it", I do hear what she came close to saying, and I call her out for being completely biased in her assessments and implications about what this means. You are correct, however, that while I APEAR to give her a pass for qualifying, I would likely not give those on the right the same....but that's only an appearance. Her IMPLICATION that this would "prove" they have something on Trump is just biased, conjecture, and wrong, and is a reason I don't watch her, even though I agree mostly with her takes on things.....mostly.
Kyle was lying when he reported what she said....and that's what I took issue with. I also took issue with his take on the issue that Russia militarizing it's borders isn't something to guard against...history proves him wrong.

The 'proof' of Russian involvement in the hacking is classified, you won't get to see it. That's an issue with Trump decrying the intelligence community (who didn't really get Iraq wrong, btw, they were clear in their uncertainty in their reports, but the administration erased any hint of uncertainty and claimed the redacted reports were fact publicly.)...but as a whole, I still have some trust in them...perhaps it's misplaced but I have a hard time believing so many intelligence organizations came to the same specific conclusions based on pure bias.

Um...Russia expanded into 2 countries recently, and are eyeing the other Slavic states. To me, that's a renewal of a hot war if we ever react like we're obligated to by treaty, until we do, it's a renewal of the cold war (and a violation of numerous treaties, including https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Security_Assurances) ...one that the pentagon is probably quite happy about, granted.

Again, don't feel you have to defend your viewpoint from me, or your admiration for a reporter....but allow me to have my own viewpoint, and to state and explain it if I choose. I am also quite biased, but not to the point of exclusion of fact.


EDIT: As to the troop placement in the Eastern NATO countries, I would like to see minutes of the 1990 summit where this agreement/guarantee was either made or not, not just reports of what Putin says today VS what Gorbachev says today...I want to see what was ACTUALLY said in the meeting, and more important, what was SIGNED by the parties. That the Russians haven't produced a signed treaty guaranteeing NATO wouldn't deploy farther in the East EVER is a pretty good indicator to me that it was not agreed on, so claims about what may have been SAID during negotiations are moot and have no bearing at all on what was agreed on. It's possible there was that agreement, if they just point us to it, I'll be on their side on this topic (unless it included a clause like "unless Russia begins expansion back into it's now independent satellites")

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.