If the American security agencies had smoking-gun evidence that the Russians had an organized campaign to derail the U.S. presidential election and deliver the White House to Trump, then expelling a few dozen diplomats after the election seems like an oddly weak and ill-timed response. Voices in both parties are saying this now....
It appears that a large segment of the press is biting hard on the core allegations of electoral interference emanating from the Obama administration. Did the Russians do it? Very possibly, in which case it should be reported to the max. But the press right now is flying blind. Plowing ahead with credulous accounts is problematic because so many different feasible scenarios are in play.
On one end of the spectrum, America could have just been the victim of a virtual coup d'etat engineered by a combination of Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin, which would be among the most serious things to ever happen to our democracy. But this could also just be a cynical ass-covering campaign, by a Democratic Party that has seemed keen to deflect attention from its own electoral failures.
The outgoing Democrats could just be using an over-interpreted intelligence "assessment" to delegitimize the incoming Trump administration and force Trump into an embarrassing political situation: Does he ease up on Russia and look like a patsy, or escalate even further with a nuclear-armed power?
३० डिसेंबर, २०१६
"Nearly a decade and a half after the Iraq-WMD faceplant, the American press is again asked to co-sign a dubious intelligence assessment."
"Something About This Russia Story Stinks," writes Matt Taibbi in Rolling Stone.
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
१६९ टिप्पण्या:
Will the media actually do some investigative journalism or will they just keep swallowing what Obama is giving them. I think they are swallowers, they have been for the past 8 years.
The whole thing just reinforces the poor opinion the public has of them.
This is really pathetic. About the only thing that they can credibly claim is that hacked emails and the like had Russian fingerprints on the hacking software. Not that the Russian govt itself was behind it, but just that the tools used to hack these email accounts ultimately came from Russia. And, they really haven't claimed that any of the leaked documents were faked or forged, essentially admitting that they were genuine. Rather, it was just embarrassing that hackers had gotten into, and released publicly, DNC, Podesta, etc. emails. They should have been embarrassed - they show the DNC colluding with the Crooked Hillary campaign to kill Sanders' bid, and with MSM people to feed them debate questions, or to take them from them. In short, the Dems were cheating, got caught, and now they are all butt hurt because of they got caught.
Oh, and I forgot, some of them seem to believe that Crooked Hillary might have won, if they hadn't gotten caught with their pants down, cheating.
Meanwhile, WikiLeaks says that they obtained their material not from hacks, but from a Democrat insider(s).
No doubt there were some Russian origin hacking attempts -- and still are. And they have been for years. Just as the Chinese and others have been poking around to see what they can find. It is routine and on-going. By governments and by thieves and by simply malicious people who are out to cause mischief. I expect the U.S. government is doing it too.
Taibbi is right. That 13-page "intelligence report" was a joke. We're all supposed to know it was the Russians because the cartoon pictures of hoodie-wearing phishers are all red?
And the cyber warfare threat of the last decade is only important only after Podesta falls for a phishing scam?
There seem to be a number of lefties who privately believe that, in the long-run, Trump's derailment of the Democratic Party establishment under Clinton was a necessary evil if not a good thing.
Why does anyone read what this twerp writes in Rolling Stone ?
I was hoping they would be bankrupt by now.
less than a year from now you will be embarrassed that . . .
OK, I'll bite since you've posted this several times now. Why should she be embarrassed? Why will she feel regret? Why would she say to herself with anguish, "If only I had written even one critical post about Trump! Woe upon woe!"
Amazing that such an insight come from the Rolling Stone/Matt Taibibi duo. Don't follow them carefully, but whenever I do click across some the writing from that source they appear to total stooges for the Dems. Have we suffered a bloodless coup d'etat engineered by Trump & Putin, and when we discover it our reaction is to boot out some low level diplomatic functionaries? Rolling Stone, not NYT or WAPO or even FOX News detects the obvious bullshit is this equation. Stunning.
There is obviously a large portion of Americans that think Democrats and the press are more dangerous than the Russians. Van Jones runs on TV to say "cyber war is real war". Liberals sure seem stupid thirsty for war with Russia.
Did anybody really want to enforce a no fly zone over Syria? Are we sure Hillary, Obama, and Kerry didn't arm terrorist "rebels" and cause the suffering in Aleppo with their stupidity?
The same Americans that think Democrats and the Press are morons are the same ones who feel like Brussels has its head up it dictatorial, smarmy, bureaucratic ass. We need to protect Europe from what with our money, sons, and daughters? They can't even protect themselves from a known Trojan horse that they hoped would just deliver cheap labor.
Shit. There's a good change that Putin is even more sane that any given member of the Madison City Council.
"On one end of the spectrum, America could have just been the victim of a virtual coup d'etat engineered by a combination of Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin, which would be among the most serious things to ever happen to our democracy."
Translation: we buy this hysterical fantasy, but we are not willing to say so out loud.
Whatever it is, Putin just decisively outplayed Obama (and possibly Trump) by not approving the retaliatory expulsions that his ambassador (supposedly sincerely) recommended.
Have we suffered a bloodless coup d'etat engineered by Trump & Putin, and when we discover it our reaction is to boot out some low level diplomatic functionaries? Rolling Stone, not NYT or WAPO or even FOX News detects the obvious bullshit is this equation.
Add in that when congressional leaders -- with high security clearance -- asked to briefed and shown the evidence, the Administration refused.
There is a new world order forming, or attempting to form.
It is resistant to the EU, Brussels, and American Liberalism.
Trump and Putin think George Soros' vision of the world is bullshit. I do too.
I'm sorry. Soros and his globalist ilk are evil. Europe fucked itself.
Why follow them down the same path? We can stop financing their national defense. Brussels wants it own army anyway. If that happens, the EU Army will be America's biggest threat in 10 to 20 years.
If Russia could do all this damage by hacking the DNC, just imagine what they did with all the information from Hillary's server.
Amazing that such an insight come from the Rolling Stone/Matt Taibibi duo
No kidding. Still sitting here with my shocked face.
Is this just the continuation of the leftie drama/farce or is this a leftie reading the signs and welcoming our new orange overlord?
Cyber War is real war. It became a successful war for somebody because Hillary Clinton. John Podesta and the DNC neglected to secure the borders of their cyber world. These were supposed to be serious people, the top leaders of the Democratic Party. They were exposed as multi-faceted fools.
Did the Russians or their agents do this intrusion? I do not think we will ever know. But we now know that Clinton and Podesta were mirages. Their former supporters know this too. It's hard to come to terms with that.
Putin is about to bring Trump in as a player in Syrian peace negotiations.
Then they will jointly go after ISIS.
And the only pissed off parties will be the EU, American Liberals, and the press.
Are we sure Hillary, Obama, and Kerry didn't arm terrorist "rebels" and cause the suffering in Aleppo with their stupidity?
You've not seen it reported here, but Christians in Aleppo were happy this Christmas because it was the first time in several years that they could celebrate Christ's birth in their churches and cathedral.
See two stories here and here.
According to well-informed sources contacted by AsiaNews, the people of Aleppo have celebrated with singing and dancing on the rubble strewn streets; in general there is an atmosphere of widespread joy, in spite of the ravages of war and the signs conflict that are visible everywhere.
However, the biggest victory for Aleppo is not the liberation of the city from jihadists and insurgents, which in four years failed to foster the support of the population, rather the total failure of their attempt to kill the spirit of tolerance and coexistence between religions and ethnicities. This is peculiar to Syria and especially its northern metropolis, and Jihadist extremism could not erase it.
In fact, in a sign of triumph Aziziya - the Armenian Christian Quarter of Aleppo - erected a giant Christmas tree, festively illuminating the streets. Moreover, yesterday evening a band, composed of Armenian youth dressed as Santa Claus, performed in the square to the delight of the entire population of the area. . . .
About one million people originally from Aleppo returned to the city after the liberation by the government forces, all ready to pick up their lives from where they were suddenly interrupted by jihadist groups. They want to rebuild, re-open businesses and factories, return the equipment stolen by militias and smuggled into Turkey. In the area there is an atmosphere of enthusiasm and dynamism, elements that have always characterized the people of Aleppo.
Last I checked, we had a CIA Director -- his name is John Brennan. He was appointed by Obama in 2013. Until Pompeo is confirmed, Brennan is the head of the CIA.
Has Brennan spoken on this issue of Russian hacking? Has he held a press conference? Has he been quoted in any newspaper affirming that Russia hacked Podesta's e-mails?
No, no and no.
What the Left has is: A NY Times article quoting "unamed" CIA sources, claiming that the CIA has concluded that Russia hacked the DNC emails.
Gee, what could possibly go wrong with that line of reasoning? (anonymous source + "conclusion" - the facts that support the conclusion.)
Which of these things is not like the other. Putin, Wikileaks, Obama.
Damn sad that i actually side with the Russians on this, but there it is.
"Whatever it is, Putin just decisively outplayed Obama (and possibly Trump) by not approving the retaliatory expulsions that his ambassador (supposedly sincerely) recommended."
Putin just Bitch Slapped Obama, again. And, he saved Trump. Obama is only doing this and other outrageous things to try and tie Trump's hands. Obama is a disaster for the US and the world. The really bad thing is that he will not go away, now will Clinton. I was really hoping that I would never see these jerks again, but it will not happen.
On reflection I withdraw my comment that the author was slyly exposing the Russia Did It story without having the guts to endorse it. Bad initial (too cursory) reading by me.
Gusty Winds said...
Putin is about to bring Trump in as a player in Syrian peace negotiations.
Possible, but at what price? Trump is in a tough spot.
I believe Putin over the media -AND- Obama. Because I don't believe the media or Obama at all.
Period.
David said...
Possible, but at what price?
How about not going to war with Assad, Russia, Turkey, and Iran? Seems like a fair price.
WTF is our national interest in seeing Assad fall? Seems the Europeans are more interested in that outcome. Wonder what they were promised? An oil pipeline?
Wonder what the Saudi's and Qatar were promised by Hillary and Obama in exchange for 'charitable' donations?
But this could also just be a cynical ass-covering campaign, by a Democratic Party that has seemed keen to deflect attention from its own electoral failures.
You know what this is all about? It's about people in power who just got shown up to be really incompetent assholes, & that revelation is about to butcher their cash cow.
The Podesta brothers, Wasserman Schultz, Hillary, Brock & the rest of that crew's currency is that they're "Fixers". Machers. The guys who know who & how to get things done. But, now they get shown up as having absolutely no computer smarts or security at all. You gonna trust these people to handle your very delicate negotiations on that big deal with the Saudis, or the Federal Gov, or whomever?
Oh, but it wasn't John Podesta being so fucking stupid that he got phished like a 13 year school girl, & even then he didn't change his password. It wasn't that the DNC pissed off a sizable fraction of Democrats, including its own employees, by fucking over Bernie. Nooooooo. It was that nasty SOB Putin! With the entire might of the Russian services behind him, he reached out and smited the Democrats with a mighty smote. For what reason? Because.
On a more serious note, it's never pointed out that neither the DNC nor the Hillary campaign are in any way US government entities. In other words, this hack should only be able to affect US security about as much as hacking into your local dentist's practice. Now, if the DNC or the HRC campaign had secure material, the question then becomes: "uhhhhhhh, why?". At that point, it isn't Unky Vlad who we need to send to the woodshed.
What's happened to Matt Taibbi? He's a crazy lefty with a lefty's knowledge of economics, and just wrote a dismissive and amusing commentary on Thomas Friedman's writing too.
He's turning against dem bullshit.
Will he discover dem economics bullshit as well?
Peggy Coffey asks: Will the media actually do some investigative journalism..?
No, they don't do that any more. To much work. Much easier to just sit in the newsroom and make things up.
Anyone remember the movie, The Year of Living Dangerously? The reporter gets off his bar stool and makes a call to report his 'story' and returns to his bar stool, never leaving the hotel. I suspect this is how most of our foreign correspondents work nowadays.
Taibbi used to play baseball in Russian professional leagues.
Maybe basketball. I think it was baseball, though.
And we're all sure it wasn't the Israelis?
Cause something in me tells me they would be more than happy to tar and/or bring down Obama's legacy and the future of Clinton.
And apparently they are very good at this sort of spy stuff. I cite to the insidious virus which infected the firmware and software of the German equipment leading to divilitating damage to Iran's centrifuges.
Were Obama's recent actions a secret payback? Is there a reason he wouldn't want to call out the Israelis on this directly? Say, for example, that he had secretly involved the US and clandestine US agencies or services in the last Israeli election, and he doesn't want that let out of the bag by the Israelis?
Something tells me that a whole lot of other things about Obama are going to be outed in the coming days, probably after January 20 to assure that Obama will be powerless to retaliate.
The press isn't being asked to endorse it, just to keep it the story of the day.
Taibbi is a creature of the Left. A true believer. You have been warned.
The saddest thing is, if Obama's claims are 100% correct...all Russia did was provide transparency. Literally nothing more.
Nobody has claimed the emails were lies or fabricated.
In the end, why is there this demand for apparent war with Russia? And why should Americans not be embarrassed that Putin is allowing Obama to make a total ass of himself?
On one hand, on the other hand. Taibbi cannot help but frame his criticism, not on principle, not on facts, but through deflection and entanglement of competing interests. He's wrong about the end of war in Iraq. He's right about its renewal and progress to become a global conflict including "peace"-mongering and refugee crises (a.k.a. immigration "reform").
As many have said, if Obama's claims were serious, his response was comically weak.
And why should Americans not be embarrassed that Putin is allowing Obama to make a total ass of himself?
Americans agree with Putin's assessment of Obama.
Obama's just a lightweight nobody who we can't get rid of owing to red tape.
Even funnier given that the press wanted Bush to forego his "lame duck" term and let Obama take over before Thanksgiving.
As for Russia, they have sufficient cause to defeat the Obama administration and his heir apparent, Clinton. So does China, Israel, Serbia, France, Germany, Libya, Egypt, Iraq, Syria, Mexico, etc., etc., etc. I wonder why they are targeting Russians, from Damascus to Kiev to DC. Well, other than their abundant natural resources.
Bruce Hayden said...
The Irony Bruce, is that is that there is absolutely no evidence that any of the revealed material is false. Meaning the Russians finally made good on the Obama promise to "Be the Most Transparent Admin evah"
Furthermore, this piss-ant little sanction now belies the issue that the Russians "owned" the Department of State and White House UNCLASS networks for months in 2-14 and 2015. Spear Phishing again.
We did nothing then, but now want to make a stink about the DNC?
I'd bet, just looking at it, that Taibbi has been inspired by Trump's way of dealing with press bullshit, and noticed that, hey, this really is bullshit, and is beginning to deal with it.
It fits his persona, except he used to deal only in corporate bullshit.
He's now noticed that it's all over.
"On one end of the spectrum, America could have just been the victim of a virtual coup d'etat engineered by a combination of Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin, which would be among the most serious things to ever happen to our democracy. But this could also just be a cynical ass-covering campaign, by a Democratic Party that has seemed keen to deflect attention from its own electoral failures."
Occam's Razor.
Of course Russia is hacking every thing they can. So are we. So are the Lithuanians, for that matter. Do you recall a recent embarrassment where we tapped Merkel's phone?
So far the biggest, most effective known hack occurred in 1982:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/1455559/CIA-plot-led-to-huge-blast-in-Siberian-gas-pipeline.html
There's more money on the left anyway, so more need for bullshit.
Well I don't know if Matt suddenly wised up. I doubt it. But if the folks who got libelled by Rolling Stone and its "Jackie" story ever collect their judgments, I don't know that Matt will have a place to print this codswallop.
Well said, Taibbi. For those of us of a certain age, the drummed up antagonism toward the Russians has a very familiar ring, though previously it was mostly the right rather than the left that was promoting it.
Even if the Russians did hack the Podesta emails, that's a far cry from "hacking the election," which is now the apparently preferred formulation. Plus, the hacked emails, while reported in the press, were not a big story, contrary to Obama's false assertion to Trevor Noah that the Wikileaks emails "ended up being the overwhelming story and the constant source of coverage, breathless coverage." There's also no evidence that the Podesta emails moved the needle in any significant way. They may have kept some disgruntled Sanders supporters home, but otherwise they don't seem to have influenced many voters. (BTW, aren't all Sanders supporters disgruntled in one way or another? It seems to define them, and him.)
With all the allegations of Russia supporting Trump and Trump cozying up to Putin, the only way Trump can disprove them is to ratchet up the animosity with Russia. Is that really what the liberal elites and Democrats want? It seems like madness.
Of course, John and Lindsay McCain are lending bipartisan credibility to this effort to take us to DEFCON 3 based on a supposed Russian hacking. But I guess when start your career flying bombing missions, every problem looks like a target in the bombsights. (The old hammer/nail thing.)
The Iraq-WMD faceplant? Saddam gassed the Kurds in the '70s and the Iranians in the '80s.in violation of the Geneva Convention (which the Iraqis were not invited to attend). Chemical warfare equals Weapons of Mass Destruction - last time I checked.
Then there was the yellow cake uranium reported by Democrat Joe Wilson, Valarie Plame's husband. Poor Valarie was really outed by another Democrat, diplomat Marc Grossman in 2001.
Once again Putin has shown Obama to be a fool. He will leave office as the laughing stock of the Western world. But this creates a problem. A person with a very high opinion of himself (and Obama's opinion of himself could not be higher) often falls into an irrational rage when he is publicly shown to be a fool. Obama's keepers had best keep him away from any weapon of mass destruction until he leaves office.
That Putin's organization is sharp. He not only had it make the FBI investigate Hillary's Clinton Cash Crime spree, he also made Comeh cover up for her purloined classified materials after releasing a cell phone video of Bill and Loretta's secret tete a tete on a the back airport tarmac in Phoenix.
And then Putin had his men insert a series of fake Podesta emails proving the Hillary folks ran a pedophile sex slave ring and feed it to Assange whom Putin ordered to blame it on a DNC employee leak, and execute the DNC employee to make it look worse.
Putin needs to lay down his massive H-Bomb forces and promptly surrender to the US Marshals.
Since before I was born, authors have been mocking American Secretary of State Henry Stimson for his naive and fatuous statement that "gentlemen do not read each other's mail". Now this has apparently become a principle of international statecraft, at least according to the Obama administration. The future must not belong to those who expose the corrupt maneuvering of the Democratic Party.
These are the same feckless shitheads, by the way, who let the Chi-Coms steal the application data of everyone who has ever applied for a US security clearance, then acted like it was no big deal. And don't let us forget that it was Bill Clinton who handed over classified information about ICBM re-entry vehicle targeting to the Chi-Coms in return for a pocketful of magic beans. It appears that the Democrats hate the Russians because
a) they are white people, and
b) they are Christians.
The Chi-Coms are just a bunch of charming albeit inscrutable Asiatic atheists running a massive network of organ-removal death camps while they work overtime to decrease the flight time of their ICBMs and develop carrier-killer missles. What's not to like?
The "Real Fake News".
I think that Putin and Trump will quietly ignore everything that Obama has done since Election Day, if not prior to then.
Lost in the kerfluffle (1) the assertion that the Russians also attempted to hack the RNC but were defeated by the Republicans' more effective security controls (so which party should we trust to safeguard the personal data that the government makes us send to them?), (2) the claim that the FBI attempted to warn the DNC that it was under attack, only to be ignored, and (3) Assange himself claimed that he received the DNC Email data from a disgruntled Bernie supporter. As regards the last point, following the release of the DNC Email data a DNC staffer was murdered on the DC streets in the wee hours of the morning. Robbery gone wrong? Why didn't the robber take his watch or wallet?
"And we're all sure it wasn't the Israelis?
Cause something in me tells me they would be more than happy to tar and/or bring down Obama's legacy and the future of Clinton. "
I've doubted all along that it was the Russians. Either the Israelis or NSA officers angry at Clinton and her foolish team for breaching US security.
putin is eating trump for breakfast... trump is borderline incompetent out of the gate.. he can't sue putin into capitulation here... they will be toasting trump this NY in the kremlin... buckle up folks its getting interesting... whats the over/under in the number of military actions his orangeness will engage us in before next year at this time? for God's sake donald take the daily security briefing... a smart guy would!
And I suspect that the reason the Democrats are so blase about China is that their MAster-of-the-Universe donors in Silicon Valley still haven't figured out that the Chinese government is not going to let them make their next trillion selling ones and zeroes to the population of China. That trillion will be going into the pockets of the Chi-Com gangster class, thank you very much. But the one-trick ponies from the Valley of the Dolts with their STEM degrees from Top Universities can't quite fathom that you can't make a fortune introducing "disruptive technologies" to a country without a functioning court system, no matter how large its population may be. The Chinese will be happy to have the Siliconians show them how it's done. And then they will steal the IP and show them the door, with or without their left kidney. Hell, the idiots at Google are probably working on a kidney-removal drone right now. And the Chinese have already stolen the plans.
Looks like the DNC servers are as porous as the U.S. borders.
On a 1 to 10 scale for honest investigative reporting, most writers for NYT and WaPo are between a -10 and a 3. But Taibbi is a 7 or 8. I think he takes pride in his work.
GWash said...
"putin is eating trump for breakfast... trump is borderline incompetent out of the gate.. he can't sue putin into capitulation here... they will be toasting trump this NY in the kremlin... buckle up folks its getting interesting... whats the over/under in the number of military actions his orangeness will engage us in before next year at this time? for God's sake donald take the daily security briefing... a smart guy would!"
What a Moron...
Putin is embarrassing the Usurper Obama in front of the entire world.
I am relatively certain the press was thrown through a glass coffee table and gang raped as part of a fraternity initiation.
I read it in Rolling Stone before Rolling Stone was sued into bankruptcy.
Does anyone actually read the news?
" the core allegations of electoral interference " don't exist. There was no electoral interference, and no one has reported such.
" America could have just been the victim of a virtual coup d'etat " -- Again, the actual facts conveyed in the actual news about the actual intelligence assessments say nothing to this effect. Taibbi is certainly indulging in hyperbole here, to set up his dig at the Democratic Party, but not a word in this phrase matches the actual facts.
The Russians are accused of hacking DNC emails many months before the actual election and releasing said emails through wikileaks to embarrass the Hillary campaign. The actual embarrassing news was utterly banal. Leaked news is not electoral interference. "Information" is not a synonym for "virtual". And if coup d'etat is a label that can be derived from "leaked information" than every election is a coup d-etat.
Note the second paragraph in this Politico article from October (my emphasis):
The late-Friday release came almost immediately after a devastating tape emerged of Donald Trump in 2005 talking about how being “a star” entitled him to make aggressive sexual advances on women, fueling speculation that WikiLeaks is trying to tip the balance of the election.
Funny how that tape "emerged" while the Podesta emails were "hacked" and "released."
By Taibbi's definition, if Trump had lost, it would have been via a "virtual coup d'etat" by the Washington Post.
From my link above (my emphasis):
An Access Hollywood rep told PEOPLE on Saturday that the clip leaked while they were preparing for the story that aired on their program on Friday.
“As we reported in our story, Access Hollywood has interviewed Donald Trump literally hundreds of times over 20 years,” the show rep says. “With Mr. Trump’s nomination as presidential candidate, Access Hollywood reviewed its extensive library footage and discovered these comments.
“In the course of preparing our story which ran Friday night, our footage was leaked to the Washington Post.
“We have combed through every interview we have done with Mr. Trump over the past 20 years and at this time, we have not uncovered any other footage that rises to this level.”
So perhaps the "virtual coup d'etat" that caused the Hillary campaign's fatal overconfidence was the work of an NBC intern.
@rhhardin - Taibibi, to his credit (I can't believe I am saying this), has the experience of life in Moscow during the 1990s, when he was the co-editor of an extremely non-PC newspaper called "The eXile". His insight (and cynicism) about Russian state actors and their relationship to US politics is likely well-founded. Frankly, it would be foolish for anyone to assume that any one of America's state competitors would not attempt to mess with us, given the opportunity. Of course the Russians were in the mix - but no-where in their dreams did they expect this kind of publicity. Putin is laughing and laughing at this most recent Obama/Clinton idiocy - as is probably anyone and everyone in his extended circle.
Would someone go over and do an intervention with "Once written" s she seem to be having a seizure.
It's dangerous to be that close to a keyboard when under the influence of whatever it is.
Blogger GWash said...
putin is eating trump for breakfast..
Poor dope. You spout this nonsense like you knew something.
You lefties always post stream of consciousness blabber mouth. No links.
I will concede that the world would have been better off had we left both Saddam Hussein and Muammar Gaddafi alive.
The Left, having lost the election, is trying to make the US ungovernable until they can return to power. Simple as that. It won't work. Obama has now officially become the worst President in history, letting George Soros call the shots.
@mockturtle
We at least had an excuse for Hussein; we'd tried the only viable alternative, keeping troops in Saudi Arabia indefinitely. And that alternative had inspired a series of ever-escalating terrorist attacks on the US (Khobar Towers, bombings at two US Embassies, the USS Cole, and 9/11).
Gaddafi, though? He'd abandoned terrorism and WMD programs (scared straight, incidentally, by Hussein's fate). The excuse was what, that there were some civilian casualties while he fought a rebellion? A war of choice for the sake of French oil companies.
mockturtle:
Hussein was a belligerent dictator operating under the sanctions of a ceasefire agreement. The war in Iraq started with the invasion of Kuwait, was sustained under Clinton, concluded under Bush with Hussein's trial. Hussein's dictatorship was replaced with a coalition presence that mediated historical and secular interests of the various groups. The war was resurrected and metastasized under Obama.
Gaddafi was a reformed dictator who was sodomized and aborted during the social justice adventure, "Arab Spring".
I wonder if GWash has been keeping up with the wars Hillary had been starting and is worried that Trump will be even worse than she would have been. Naah.
But this could also just be a cynical ass-covering campaign, by a Democratic Party that has seemed keen to deflect attention from its own electoral failures.
ding ding ding...
what do we have for him, Johnny?
On one end of the spectrum, America could have just been the victim of a virtual coup d'etat engineered by a combination of Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin, which would be among the most serious things to ever happen to our democracy.
Matt Taibbi is hedging, and ignoring the 500-pound gorilla riding the 7-ton pink elephant in the room, which is this: A Trump/Putin coup d'etat could only be plausible if the revelations brought to light by Julian Assange were false. So far no one, not even Mizz Hillary herself, has made that claim. Instead they chose from the first moment to shout "Russian hackers!" as a ploy to change the subject from the substance of the message to the messenger's identity.
for God's sake donald take the daily security briefing... a smart guy would!
GWash admits his favorite Prez is a biger idiot than Trump
bigger idiot
Oh dear, is this all it takes for Taibbi et. al. to hook cons into an expansive and public airing of this?
Carry on.
And, in terms of a shot at W (and cons, themselves), too.
Cool stuff.
Somehow I'm not sure DJT is as dopey as y'all who support him.
So, he won't be tricked like all y'all.
It's not like he'd fall for his own shtick, like all y'all.
This Taibbi angle won't fly w/ DJT, unlike y'all.
DJT grabs your pussies.
Not the other way around.
Taibbi grabs your pussies, too. But not DJT's
Note: some pussies are figurative pussies, others not.
Steven and n.n.: I am well aware of the transgressions of Hussein and the very successful first Gulf War. But invading Iraq after 9/11, as if there was some connection, and on spurious evidence of WMDs was a mistake. Oh, at the time I was as gung-ho as anyone because I foolishly believed all the propaganda. Having lived through the Vietnam era, I should have known better.
I agree with Trump. If we are going to commit troops--or weapons or any other materiel--we should have a well-defined goal of victory and not waste lives and resources on nation-building or endless occupations.
Birkel said...
"I am relatively certain the press was thrown through a glass coffee table and gang raped as part of a fraternity initiation."
Hmmmm, got a source for that? Ah, Hell, it's too good to check. Let's run with it!
Too bad there's no video ...
"...the very successful first Gulf War."
The Iran-Iraq war was referred to as the Gulf War, before our first Gulf War.
Anywho. There have been two or three Gulf Wars, depending on how folks count.
As seen in the interwebz:
Question: WHAT did Russia do to influence the US election?
Answer: They helped the democrats finally deliver on their promises of transparency.
I hope all y'all are petitioning your gov folks to have all sorts of hearings and public disclosure re this stuff, like Taibbi says: we need to find out what trickery the Ds are up to here.
Many, many, many investigations are needed. Public investigations. Like Taibbi says.
Do what Taibbi says, that'll really show the Ds!
Ha ha.
You cons sure know how to disprove Scott Adams.
Funny stuff.
https://mobile.twitter.com/AnnCoulter/status/814595691779592192
LOL
Scott Adams said he had a boss who always said NO. So, Adams asked him for the opposite of what Adams wanted.
Well, y'all here surely don't need to be told that the boss was suckered every time.
Carry on.
Time to return to the 80s.
Except this time WE take Eastern Europe and the Russians can have the Western Europeans.
Solved.
I am Laslo.
As our soon-to-be leader would say: Sad.
[But funny, imho]
mockturtle:
There was WMD, less than believed. The point, however, is that it was not a new war, but rather the conclusion of a war which was motivated by several factors including violation of the terms set by the ceasefire agreement. The Iraq war did not end in 1991. It ended in 2004 with Hussein's deposition and trial. It was resurrected with the creation of a vacuum following a premature evacuation of a stabilizing force, honest brokers, in lieu of a dictatorship, which metastasized with social justice adventurism through the Middle East, Africa, Europe, and beyond.
"Except this time WE take Eastern Europe"
Moooslims in both, let's not take either.
Jeezum,PB&J what are you smoking? Never mind,I don't care.
TinV,
Crack on Fridays (and, technically, Sat-->Thur, too).
Every other day I have my crack in an isolation tank. Today is a crack-tank day.
"Why does anyone read what this twerp writes in Rolling Stone?
Do you have information that suggests Taibbi writes fake or poorly informed articles?
Doing crack in an isolation tank is easier said than done.
Just sayin'
"...invading Iraq after 9/11, as if there was some connection, and on spurious evidence of WMDs was a mistake. Oh, at the time I was as gung-ho as anyone because I foolishly believed all the propaganda. Having lived through the Vietnam era, I should have known better."
Mockturtle, you're wrong. It wasn't a "mistake," but a crime, premeditated and long-planned. I'm shocked anyone believed the propaganda. Even as it was happening, it was transparently fraudulent, a not-convincing-in-the-least shell game.
The notice from the DHS about Russian cyber activity was weak but I did get a new profile picture from it so it wasn't a total waste of time.
Now I am l33t U88R haxor!
"Except this time WE take Eastern Europe"
Lyin'PB_Ombudsman said...
"Moooslims in both, let's not take either."
My take on Eastern and Western Europe is mostly decided by the Porn they produce.
I am Laslo.
Tabbai is like a reverse barometer, he's almost always talking out his backside.
Beware the fair and balanced façade with this guy, he might just be setting it up to blame Vladimir.
French Porn is currently having a large influx of Arabian women performers.
You can tell a lot about a country's dreams and fears by the women they masturbate about.
American Porn is less obsessed with breast implants now. More tattoos.
I need a grant.
I am Laslo.
I skimmed the FBI/DHS report. 2 pages deal with a couple of alleged "phishing" attacks against the DNC. The balance is a "how to" on securing computer systems. There is no hard evidence to indicate that it was, indeed, Russians who hacked the DNC.
I am nobody, but I get phished at least once a week and I know what to do about one when I get it. This entire move by Obama deserves Ann's BS tag. Raiding the DNC, or the RNC, or Wells fargo bank, etc. is probably every teen age geek's dream. One or more succeeded with the Dems. Putin is acting like an adult in this case for he sees the move for the domestic political move that it is. Trump is wise to wait for the children to finish with their tantrum before he does anything.
Robert Cook said: Mockturtle, you're wrong. It wasn't a "mistake," but a crime, premeditated and long-planned. I'm shocked anyone believed the propaganda. Even as it was happening, it was transparently fraudulent, a not-convincing-in-the-least shell game.
I agree that it was premeditated and that the excuses were probably fabricated. By 'mistake' I meant that we shouldn't have done it.
n.n. proposes: It was resurrected with the creation of a vacuum following a premature evacuation of a stabilizing force, honest brokers, in lieu of a dictatorship, which metastasized with social justice adventurism through the Middle East, Africa, Europe, and beyond.
I'd like to believe that but I don't think more troops staying longer would have made much difference in the long run. Face it. The Shia were just waiting for the opportunity we made possible, not to mention the Sunni factions that became ISIS. With Saddam gone, they would've been fighting it out anyway.
From its history as Mesopotamia, Iraq has remained a largely tribal land, in spite of the efforts of T.E. Lawrence and Gertrude Bell and other colonials trying to make a 'nation' of it.
Obama benefits from Hillary losing.
If she won he'd have to shut up and go away. As it stands he gets to be the voice of the opposition.
"I'd like to believe that but I don't think more troops staying longer would have made much difference in the long run."
Thinking of the real first Gulf War, folks suggest the total death toll (Iran and Iraq) was more than a million. And, that didn't seem to make a dent, re a turning point toward what we (rightly) consider rationality. If that didn't confirm that these folks are beyond help, what would? Especially after our nation building, democracy spreading fiasco post the real first Gulf War, w/ two of our own Gulf Wars.
Anywho, Scott Adams says we should forcibly wall them off and let them do unto themselves. That's a bit much, but we could certainly stop importing them.
Count me impressed by Taibbi. At a time when almost all reporters determine what their story is by the narrative they are pushing, Taibbi, a hard leftist, rejects the leftist narrative in favor of trying to figure out what the facts are. Wow, that's so old fashioned!
mockturtle said...
"... invading Iraq after 9/11, as if there was some connection, and on spurious evidence of WMDs was a mistake. Oh, at the time I was as gung-ho as anyone because I foolishly believed all the propaganda."
mt, I don't question your good sense, but I would point out that a course of action is only a mistake if better courses are available. Saddam Hussein was a serious problem that kept getting worse. He was staging constant provocations, massing troops and tanks on his southern borders. Responding to those provocations, and maintaining the no-fly zone over northern Iraq, was becoming the chief activity of the entire US military. Anyone who claims the Iraq invasion was a mistake needs to explain what the viable alternative was.
It wasn't a "mistake," but a crime, premeditated and long-planned. I'm shocked anyone believed the propaganda. Even as it was happening, it was transparently fraudulent, a not-convincing-in-the-least shell game.
Yes the communists believe this so I am not surprised to see you in a "useful idiot" suit.
Robert Cook said...
"Mockturtle, you're wrong. It wasn't a "mistake," but a crime, premeditated and long-planned."
Cookie, a "crime" is when someone breaks a "law". It is certainly true, and indeed tautological, that anything long-planned is premeditated. But for a crime you need a law. Have you got one in mind?
And btw, she doesn't capitalize it.
Re: Iraq, shoulda sent the Air Force. More rubble, less trouble. Bushs big mistake. Re: the current situation vis-a-vie the Russians. Like the slam at Israel it's a bunch of spoiled brats trying to make a mess for the next guy. Because he wasn't supposed to win. Pi**ey little people, all of them.
Hey, and Cookie, let me guess; they did it for the oil, right?
@mockturtle
You don't seem to have understood what I said. Which is okay, because I said something complex, in shorthand.
There was, back in 1991, a set of three options:
1) Let Saddam Hussein control the cheaper half of the world's known oil reserves.
2) Invade Iraq to forcibly overthrow Saddam Hussein.
3) Leave US troops on the Arabian Peninsula indefinitely.
The first was obviously a bad idea; nobody ever advocated it, outside of a few people on the fringe. The second we tried to do cheap and easy in 1991, and learned that it would be a serious, difficult effort. The third is what we defaulted to doing 1991-2002 . . . but doing so unexpectedly left us on the hit list of Muslim fanatics angry about infidel boots on sacred soil.
Now, come 2002, the Iraqi military under Saddam Hussein was still strong enough to steamroll the militaries of the Arabian Peninsula. So, in 2002 our options were:
1) Let Saddam Hussein control the cheaper half of the world's known oil reserves.
2) Invade and occupy Iraq, at significant effort and expense, to forcibly overthrow Saddam Hussein.
3) Leave US troops on the Arabian Peninsula indefinitely, upsetting fanatic Muslims and inducing more attacks like 9/11.
The result was an unintelligible merry-go-round debate. If someone advocated #2, it was shouted by the opposition that Iraq wasn't involved in 9/11, what we had to do was stop doing #3. But, of course, if we stopped doing #3, the only choices were #1 or #2. So the advocate for #2 would respond that #1 was unacceptable. And the opponent of #2 would turn around and say we didn't need to do #1, we could contain Iraq -- that is, do #3. And back, and forth, and back, with the critics reversing on #3 whenever convenient.
But the Bush Administration, having to make policy rather than simply make noise, had to actually do one of #1, #2, or #3. And it was not particularly clear which was worse in the long run. And, frankly, it's still not clear whether #2 was the wrong answer. It was a choice among evils, but the pretense from the critics that we could have both done #3 and not-#3 is just as much nonsense today as it was in 2002.
Lyin'PB_Ombudsman said...
"Anywho, Scott Adams says we should forcibly wall them off and let them do unto themselves. That's a bit much, but we could certainly stop importing them."
I agree about the importing part. But it's going to take a mighty high wall to keep the Iranian nukes inside. Besides which, the UN we foolishly created in a fit of war-weariness is not about to let us build a wall around its most lucrative group of clients.
And yes, the WMDs were nonsense. They weren't the reason for the war, they were the excuse for a UNSC resolution that would pass but be vetoed so Tony Blair could claim invading Iraq was just as justified as NATO bombing Serbia.
Iraq war... A crime! sanctioned approved of and voted on .... by democrats. Lock them up!
What I don't understand is that in this article it is not mentioned that Julian Assange himself has unequivocally stated that Russia had nothing to do with the Podesta emails released by WikiLeaks. Why is everyone overlooking that? Isn't it at least worth mentioning? It's highly unusual for WikiLeaks to say anything about their sources, but he was so frustrated by the Russia story that he decided to break their policy in order to state only that the source was not Russia-related.
I agree with Trump. If we are going to commit troops--or weapons or any other materiel--we should have a well-defined goal of victory and not waste lives and resources on nation-building or endless occupations.
I'm similar. If we aren't willing to lose 200,000 lives in pursuit of the goal, the goal isn't worth it.
Blogger Bob Boyd said...
Obama benefits from Hillary losing.
If she won he'd have to shut up and go away. As it stands he gets to be the voice of the opposition.
A little bit of Obama goes a long, long way. Without the power of presidency there is no reason for Obama's opinion to matter. I doubt that Obama can transition to an "elder statesman" role. What achievements would he leverage? Why would the press seek out his comments on any issue of the day?
Steven, I think the invasion of Iraq was largely Saudi-driven. Unlike many, I don't happen to consider the Saudis our allies. Yes, they do sit on oil resources, the industry we and the Brits have developed, but they also were complicit in 9/11.
What, may I ask, would define the goal in Iraq? Could we really have achieved it with additional troops? More time? What would the ideal outcome look like and is it realistic?
But the Bush Administration, having to make policy rather than simply make noise, had to actually do one of #1, #2, or #3.
This has been discussed ad nauseum in serious web sites, like this one.
There is lots of discussion. The short version is whether we were willing to leave Saddam in control of oil in the mideast.
After 9/11, we were going to have to leave the Saudi bases as they were too unhappy with our culture. Marta McSally, my Congresswoman in Tucson, was the first female military member who refused to wear a burkha.
The Saudis wanted us to leave. Now, with fracking, I would tell them to fuck off but then we still needed their oil.
Bush did make a serious mistake but it was placing Bremer in charge of the occupation. Jay Garner had spent years with the Kurds and done well. I will never understand why Bush chose Bremer,
Cookie is an old unreconstructed communist.
What, may I ask, would define the goal in Iraq? Could we really have achieved it with additional troops? More time? What would the ideal outcome look like and is it realistic?
The goal (democratize Iraq, ala post-war Germany and Japan) was noble. But to do it, you must enter with such overwhelming force and keep them there for a long time and we didn't want to do that.
Japan was a best case scenario and we were there for SEVEN YEARS in large numbers.
Mockturtle, you're wrong. It wasn't a "mistake," but a crime, premeditated and long-planned. I'm shocked anyone believed the propaganda.
Best pay attention, mockturtle, Cookie is an expert at believing propaganda.
I would tend to doubt all of the kingdoms mouthpieces that includes freeman, scowcroft, even Joe Wilson, (who shared contacts with the almoudis were decade set against the invasion.
Bow guess the origin of this code, its from the Ukraine
Wordfence has the details
"Julian Assange himself has unequivocally stated that Russia had nothing to do with the Podesta emails released by WikiLeaks"
I just thought this was worth repeating, as this comment thread lurches off into Iraq War Thread Derail #327.
So does Robert m lee, who notes the flaws in the report.
mockturtle:
It did make a difference, all the difference in the short-term, including granting the various groups an opportunity to reconcile their differences, which had previously been managed by Hussein's dictatorship, and checking the rise of the Islamic State and resurgence of other terrorist groups. But, this was a complementary outcome. The primary outcome was resolving the ceasefire, economic and military sanctions, and ending the Iraq war. As mentioned above, there was a compelling economic interest. However, contrary to the popular narrative, that interest is indirect. Most of the Arabian oil is consumed by friends, allies, and economic partners globally.
In retrospect the gulf war was the flaw, who were the winners, Kuwait and the kingdom, what did a representatitive if each say ksm and ubl do subsequently?
It's impossible to believe that all other things being equal Obama would have taken these steps had Hillary been the Victor.
At this point there's nothing he can do that will not be seen, and in actuality be purely for political consumption.
And while I'm at it, am I also to presume Russia was supporting Hillary over Sanders in the primaries, believing her to be the weaker candidate?
Laslo Spatula said...You can tell a lot about a country's dreams and fears by the women they masturbI need a grant.
----
Can you tie your research into climate change? Or..if solely an article, invoke Bush? I mean GW.
back in 1991, a set of three options:
1) Let Saddam Hussein control the cheaper half of the world's known oil reserves.
2) Invade Iraq to forcibly overthrow Saddam Hussein.
3) Leave US troops on the Arabian Peninsula indefinitely.
<
the second we tried to do cheap and easy in 1991
--
I thought #2 was removed from the table by Bush senior.
This "Russian hack" is the biggest fake news story of the year, and it was put out and propagated by the US President and his coterie of cheap cocksuckers in the press.
As an American, I am deeply embarrassed by this President this week in a way he managed to avoid for almost 8 years. Trump derangement syndrome struck him deeply, and in his desire to hurt the President elect, Obama ended up shitting on himself this week and the rest of the country, and Putin, by refusing to retaliate rubbed Obama's nose so deeply in that shit he will be smelling it for the next four years.
Suddenly it's the Democrats red-baiting?
Throughout the 90s, Saddam Hussein was a great danger to the security of the Middle East and hence the world, in addition to being a sadistic, criminal monster who committed crimes against humanity and other atrocities against the Iraqi people.
By noon of September 11, 2001, Saddam Hussein was an unacceptable risk who needed to be removed as soon as possible whether he was directly involved in the attacks or not. With the 9-11 attacks, the U.S. needed to "take care of all family business," which meant going beyond just Osama bin Laden and other perpetrators, to include all grave threats to this nation.
Paco Wové said...
"Julian Assange himself has unequivocally stated that Russia had nothing to do with the Podesta emails released by WikiLeaks"
I just thought this was worth repeating
Wikileak's business model is to provide an anonymous outlet for hackers. How naive do you have to be to expect them to tell the truth about their sources?
So when Hillary said she voted for the Iraq War "with conviction" Cookie was thinking thinking "in due season."
Hackers AND leakers,ARM.
Pedestal was hacked by a phishing program.
Obama is stepping on his own legacy.
In 2000 I voted TWICE at the same polling station in Manhattan to see if I could. I could asd I did. How many votes did the Dems manufacture in New York, California and Illinois? Possibly none snd obviously I have no way off knowing. But I expect it was enough to give Clinton the mirage of her victory. Within a decade we need to have a Constitutional Convention and re-establish the Republic by reducing the Federal government by at least 50%. What we have created will end in Fascism. We can fix this. I am not suggesting Trump is the Answer. Obama is certainly the worst President in my lifetime. That he is an Antisemite is personal to me and of less consequence to many Americans. That he helped create and arm ISIS by the manner he abandoned Iraq, leaving billions of dollars of military equipment behind, is not mentioned anywhere in our press. He is our Reparatikons. Good riddance.
DNC was just as likely a leak. I know your confirmation bias is making you a little deaf. Assange was talking about the DNC.
tim in vermont said...
DNC was just as likely a leak. I know your confirmation bias is making you a little deaf. Assange was talking about the DNC.
This is just nutty. No one believes Podesta's emails were released as a leak. They had access to his password.
If Tim in Vermont wants to carry water for an ex-KGB dictator, who am I to judge?
ARM, are you deaf and blind to the obvious dictatorship that we have endured for the past eight-plus years? Political correctness has eroded freedom of speech and even sought to control our very thoughts. Our media have become no less odious than Tass. Recent discussion of university policies has shown that one must toe the political line to keep one's job and this tyranny has seeped into the private sector, as well. The old retort, 'You are entitled to your own opinion' is only valid if your opinion falls into line with the Progressive worldview.
The "DNC mails" and the "Podesta mails" are two separate WikiLeaks dumps, ARM. Don't you know that?
You brought up the Pedestal emails. I stuck to the topic.
Stil, if you want to carry water for the ex-KGB dictator, knock yourself out.
"Pedestal". Really phoning in your trolling this weekend, ARM.
AReasonableMan said...
"If Tim in Vermont wants to carry water for an ex-KGB dictator, who am I to judge?"
Good point. You and your friends liked him fine when he was still head of the KGB.
"By noon of September 11, 2001, Saddam Hussein was an unacceptable risk who needed to be removed as soon as possible whether he was directly involved in the attacks or not."
Hmmm...this must come as news to Condi Rice and Colin Powell, each of whom, mere months prior to 9/11, stated in separate instances that Hussein had been successfully contained and disarmed and posed no threat to his neighbors in the region.
"The goal (democratize Iraq, ala post-war Germany and Japan) was noble.
That wasn't the goal, and even if it had been, it didn't justify our illegal invasion of Iraq.
"Iraq war... A crime! sanctioned approved of and voted on .... by democrats. Lock them up!"
Yes, of course. Do you expect me to disagree or consider this some sort of refutation of my true statement that the invasion of Iraq was a crime? America's crimes are never the acts of one party.
"Tabbai is like a reverse barometer, he's almost always talking out his backside.
"Beware the fair and balanced façade with this guy, he might just be setting it up to blame Vladimir."
I suspect you do not read Taibbi, at least not regularly, as he does not present a facade of being "fair and balanced." He is clear about his point of view. He writes investigative and advocacy journalism supported by facts he has gathered in his reporting. If you disagree with his reporting, provide factual refutation. If you disagree with his conclusions, that is a matter of personal interpretation.
"Suddenly it's the Democrats red-baiting?"
Why not? How are they any different than the Republicans?
Paco Wové said...
"Pedestal".
Pedants obsess about the fruits of autocorrection.
"Suddenly it's the Democrats red-baiting?"
Keeps attention off the contents.
The election was hacked! as opposed to Hacks tried to control the election.
"Cookie, a 'crime' is when someone breaks a 'law.' It is certainly true, and indeed tautological, that anything long-planned is premeditated. But for a crime you need a law. Have you got one in mind?"
Yes, we violated the UN Charter, which forbids any member nation from attacking--or even threatening to attack--other member nations unless the UN Security Council has authorized it, (except in cases where there is a self-defense necessity).
Under Article 6 of the Constitution, any treaties to which we are signatories become "the law of the land." Therefore, we broke the law.
(That aside, if you're going to assert, as so many other nitwits have done, that a sovereign nation needs no permission to attack other nations, then NO attack by any nation against another can be considered criminal or objectionable. Thus, Nazi Germany committed no crimes in invading and assuming control its neighboring countries in Europe. Thus, Japan committed no crime in bombing Pearl Harbor. Thus, Iraq had every right to invade Kuwait in 1991. {Hussein actually thought he had been given tacit approval by the American Ambassador, April Glaspie, to take whatever actions he felt necessary, including military action, to protect Iraq from Kuwait's slant-drilling into Iraq's oil-fields.} Thus, our unprovoked attack against Iraq, resulting in the violent deaths of many Iraqi civilians--mass murder--was no crime. In short, if sovereign nations have the right to attack any nation at any time for any reasons for their own, we have no basis to condemn or bring sanctions against those countries.)
Cookie, you must remember that this is America! We can do anything we bloody well please! [Tongue firmly in cheek].
Mockturtle, there are many here who have made that assertion in all seriousness. It's dismaying.
I am very pro-American but I well remember our government interfering with elections in other countries and assassinating leaders who have the temerity to disagree with our policies, even if democratically elected. And some even had the shameless audacity to refuse our bribes!
There is a time and place for intervention and there is a time for tending one's own garden.
This part is funny:
"Many reporters I know are quietly freaking out about having to go through that again. We all remember the WMD fiasco.
"It's déjà vu all over again" is how one friend put it."
The pajama boy media has been trained to heal and after 8 years of Obama stagecraft they're "freaking out" about having to do real journalism, rather than act as court stenographers!
Also, "It's déjà vu all over again" is how one friend put it." is the writing of a high school sophomore.
"Hussein actually thought he had been given tacit approval by the American Ambassador, April Glaspie, to take whatever actions he felt necessary, including military action"
-
Oft repeated..but specifically disputed by Tariq Aziz
The other major CIA fail was Libya before Hillbama started their war. MI6 warned the US that the "rebels" they were arming were ISIS.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा