From "Mueller's report looks bad for Obama" by Scott Jennings.
That's at CNN, which tells us, "Scott Jennings, a CNN contributor, is a former special assistant to President George W. Bush and former campaign adviser to Sen. Mitch McConnell... The opinions expressed in this commentary are his own" and directs us to "View more opinion articles on CNN." At that link, you can see how the "looks bad for Obama" story is balanced. Here's my screen capture:
f
Posts
101 comments:
President Trump does not believe that Russia interferes significantly in our elections, but he has to choose his battles.
Everybody "interferes" in everybody elses' elections, and no one more than the U.S.
So it always was and will always be.
A harsh and true article by Scott Jennings. CNN is trying hard to get people to take the news they peddle seriously.
Obama gave up missile defense sites in Eastern Europe to appease Putin very early in his presidency. His "I'll have more flexibility after the election" message to Putin via Medvedev was long before the Iran deal. And he was passive and largely muted when Putin invaded Crimea. He was soft long before the Iran deal.
Obama didn’t make a big deal about the Russian interference because it wasn’t a big deal. Typical stuff we and the Russians do.
The Trump “obstruction” of the bullshit investigation wasn’t a big deal either. This is what presidents do. They don’t worry about legalistic bullshit.
Jeff: "Obama gave up missile defense sites in Eastern Europe to appease Putin very early in his presidency."
Obama also refused to provide offensive weapons to Ukraine because Obamas Pootie-Pal wouldnt like it.
Progressives can choose what to believe here:
(1) Obama did nothing because the meddling wasn't really that significant to begin with.
(2) Obama did nothing because because he and his administration were stunningly incompetent and/or were agents of the Russian government.
I pick (1), and the Mueller reports supports that judgment.
The interference was a bunch of Facebook ads wasn’t it? Really stupid ones, some for Trump some against, some for Bernie some against, some for Hillary some against, etc. I saw a site that had all they found, and looked at a lot of them. Snicker. And, let’s not forget, just speech. The fake umbrage is strong here. Anna Wintour is a foreign national and made ads for Obama, no one freaked. Didn’t Bono give a concert?
Yes the Russian meddling should be called out and condemned. But it should also be laughed at, not fainted over.
I'm still not clear on what the Russians (at least not the ones in Hillary's employee) did to interfere in the 2016 election. /serious.
We should have an investigation. And they could check out these rumors about Trump while they are at it. /sarc.
But isn't that a fair rundown of the general range of stories coming out of the Mueller report? That the Mueller report is really bad for Trump personally, and for Don Trump Jr. (there seems to be a rather specific redaction of a criminal referral for him, and of course Don Jr. refused to speak to the OSC like his father did) and a number of other current/former Trump Administration figures, such that a completely rough estimate would be something like, "the Mueller Report is 75% bad for Trump, and 20% bad for others, and 5% bad for Obama policy. (Not Obama personally, but rather for general foreign policy under the Obama State Department particularly in its pressing for an Iran deal.)
I'm not much interested in defending Obama, but compared to Trump, how bad is the Mueller Report for Obama, really?
I don't understand this blog post, Althouse. Do you think that the photo-banner at the top of the list of stories should have been of Obama? Or included Obama? It seems like an odd claim to me.
The biggest thing the Russians did was the DNC hack. That’s still small potatoes.
First the NYT, now CNN, attempting to get back in the news game. Why? Ratings/clicks? Prop up reputation. Looking at 6 more years of President Trump and trying to figure out how they are going to monitize it, now that it is clear President Trump is immune to all the old plays used to control people that are politicians?
President Trump is, at this moment agonizing if he really wants to send 50 million visitors to CNN web site, by tweeting out this CNN item. (Althouse has already sent the 1st million)
"Why did Obama go soft on Russia?
Hillary and her Super Pacs spent $1.2 Billion in the 2016 campaign, nearly twice as much as Trump. .
Good for her -- that's politics.
But the point is, a few stupid Facebook ads by Russian trolls had no effect on the nearly $2 Billion spent. None. Zero. They did not "sow social discord" --we already had enough social discord!
More so, since Obama and AG Loretta Lynch were heading the DOJ during the campaign, one wonders why they didn't indict the Russian trolls or alleged conspirators or the folks who hacked the DNC/Podesta e-mails? THEY were in charge up until 1.20.17.
Back to the question: "Why did Obama go soft on Russia?"
Answer: Because the Russian "threat" was trivial -- except in the conspiratorial minds of CNN, MSNBC and other butt-hurt leftists who still can't face the fact that Hillary LOST to Trump in 2016.
1. What does Russia have to do with Iran?
2. What negotiation with Iran? It was a capitulation.
It won't be during my lifetime, but at some point we will learn that Barack and Val skimmed off billions from the that Iran deal.
This seems like the same old "Trump is illegitimate" narrative couched to appeal to Republicans. Put an anti-Obama spin on it and maybe the rubes will accept it. It's NeverTrumper fare.
I think Obama has a perfect response to the “you let them interfere” thing.
They did not interfere in our voting. No ballots or counts were affected in any way. They placed some ads. They did nothing illegal except use fake names to pay for the ads. Any government intrusive enough to check every online ad is a totalitarian government. We have better things to do.
Just going by these titles:
The Mueller report is shocking: I assume this one is going to attempt to isolate some items and frame them as "shocking" when anything but, esp. with regards to Trump himself.
The Democrats false choice: Hard to tell from the title alone. Probably trying to advise the Congressional Dems on the impeachment issue.
Not all young American voters are left-wing Twitter warriors: Doubtless attempting to warn the Democrats that they shouldn't just assume that the youth vote is completely in blind lockstep with their far left agenda.
It's not 1998 anymore. Democrats shouldn't be afraid of impeachment: Another pro impeachment argument.
William Barr threw his credibility in the gutter: Another tedious, pathetic attempt to lash out at Barr.
Mueller report is quite a page turner Doubtless yet another article that will attempt to frame items in the Mueller report as negatively as possible for Trump.
Congress should initiate impeachment proceedings against Trump: Yet another redundant article about how impeachment is a Good Thing for Dems.
Again, going just on the titles, there's a lot of thematic redudancy here. It's all insisting that the Mueller report is super bad for Trump and that the Dems should totally push for impeachment. It's all pretty childish and sad but I guess that's the sort of content that handlers want pushed out.
I don't understand this blog post, Althouse.
Pretty standard for you, Chuck. Remember the 2012 debate where your hero Mitt tried to tell Obama the Russians were bad guys ?
Try to get Trump out of your brain, Chuck. It is showing. Badly.
The first sentence of Jennings's article: The partisan warfare over the Mueller report will rage, but one thing cannot be denied: Former President Barack Obama looks just plain bad.
As far as I am concerned, Obama's tenure in office only looks "good" in any way, shape, or form, because of the "soft bigotry of low expectations." The stimulus his administration crafted didn't stimulate anything. His entire department of Health and Human Services couldn't stand up and stress test a simple web site. Arne Duncan's "Dear Colleague" letter, has been a disaster. I could go on, but as far as Obama's successes, I will list them here:
The Mueller report itself isn’t bad for Obama.
The FISA warrants were total bullshit and spying on Trump’s campaign looks bad.. The FBI looks incompetent and corrupt, which is what Jim Comey is. A loser.
Carter Page is in the clear and the upper echelon of the FBI were all fired. A bit embarrassing to Obama. I doubt he knew what they were doing or authorized it. He was checked out by then and Comey and McCabe and the others were hoping to ingratiate themselves with Hillary. And Comey the Pious thinks he was his own branch of government. He was just a DC hack. General Counsel of Lockheed Martin.
Comey should be charged with lying to Congress. He’d probably be acquitted but he should have to endure the fate he put so many others through. Martha Stewart is laughing her ass off.
It's all pretty childish and sad but I guess that's the sort of content that handlers want pushed out.
Wait until Barr starts to go after the Deep State members of the IC and a few start to go to prison. Brennan first, I'd say.
Hysteria will rule on the left. Alger Hiss might even rise from the dead.,
Ya know giving them the benefit of the doubt, I thought maybe there was interference in state voter databases. That's what it would take in my state because we use paper ballots. But everything is uploaded to the secretary of state...but who cares how MT votes? It's only 3 electors.
So I assume Michigan, Wisconsin have similar databases. How vulnerable are they? And any county election admin could look to make sure its tallies weren't changed.
That's all. But this is about social media stuff? Like all the silly Trumpbot accounts on Twitter like Rednecks4Trump followed by a dozen flag, fireworks and cross stickers? Sheesh, who was that supposed to persuade?
I'm not much interested in defending Obama
Seriously Chuckles?
LOL!
(1) Obama did nothing because the meddling wasn't really that significant to begin with.
(1a) President Trump was being keelhualed by the left for not saying he would blindly accept the election results. The last thing Obama wanted was to give President Trump ammunition.
"That the Mueller report is really bad for Trump personally".... is Democratic spin. The percentages are realistically: 95% good for Trump, 2.5% bad for Trump, and 100% bad for Democrats and never-Trumpers.
"Seems to be a...criminal referral" for Don Jr. is also more Dem/Mainstream media wish-casting. Operative word: "Seems". As in fake news.
Please note that all of the criminal referrals for any Trump campaign or admin officials were for made-up "process" crimes or for activities that had nothing to do with what the OSC was actually supposed to be investigating. The Mueller report was a complete bust for the Dems and their media enablers, and all of the "news" stories since last week are wild hand-waving in the hopes that the low information voters won't notice that there's no there, there.
This turned out to be a disastrous policy decision.
He means Trump got elected.
If Trump was a disaster for the DC status quo power structure, good. Mission accomplished.
The actual Russian interference was less than our State Department does in other peoples elections. See Israel.
On the other hand, in every other area Obama took policies that favored Putin
Ukraine
Crimea
Georgia
Oil
Nukes
Iran
Uranium
Arms treaties
trade
Missile defense
The Intelligence Community is pretty lame. China killed off dozens of US spies while they scratched their heads.
Clapper is a drunk. Brennan is a fool and Petraeus was an idiot.
The IC is basically a bureaucracy like the Deoartment of Agriculture. Some good people surrounded by inept and lazy and corrupt bureaucrats.
Chuck at 9:50 AM
I'm not much interested in defending Obama, but compared to Trump, how bad is the Mueller Report for Obama, really?
The Mueller Report white-washes the Obama Administration's abuse of power.
The US Intelligence Community framed people who supported Donald Trump. They were framed as witting agents of Russian Intelligence -- they were known to be completely innocent -- so that the US Intelligence Community could collect information -- especially communications -- from Trump's campaign staffers and also from Trump's relatives, supporters and associates.
One of the purposes was to develop an "insurance policy" in case Trump won an Electoral College victory by a small margin. The collected information would be used to convince Electoral College voters that Trump had won his victory only because of collusion with Russian Intelligence. Electoral College voters would be convinced to change their votes from Donald Trump to Hillary Clinton.
I noted last night James Grady of condor fame, has taken the dossier to heart in a novella, including the erovxhin matter which happened after the events he relates
"Why did Obama go soft on Russia?"
Well, he did not "go" soft. He was soft from the outset. And as he told Romney, it was good and rational to be soft on Russia, crazy and irrational to be hard on Russia.
"My opinion is that it was because he was singularly focused on the nuclear deal with Iran."
True, but my opinion is that he wanted to weaken the U.S. and make concessions to our adversaries. Starting with the withdrawal of missile defense in Eastern Europe.
"Obama wanted Putin in the deal, and to stand up to him on election interference would have, in Obama's estimation, upset that negotiation. This turned out to be a disastrous policy decision."
What's "disastrous" about it? There was little interference to stand up to. Doing nothing about it had no immediate consequence. Letting the Russians "interfere" provided the kernel of the Dems' useful collusion narrative. No one on the left at any point criticized O and his minions for not doing enough against the Russians. Putin only became a bad guy in the new 2016 anti-Trump narrative, cooked up first as insurance to offset the Hill email investigation, then elaborated to account for Hill's loss and to hamstring or remove Trump.
Iran deal signed mid 2015 so chronology does not seem to work.
pacwest and Mccullough: McCullough identifies the most important thing -- leaking HRC related emails, through wikileaks. But also, Russians published (facebook and elsewhere) arguments that people should vote for Trump. In one the Russians used without permission a photograph of a coal miner in their "Miners for Trump" presentation. https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2019/04/22/russians-used-photo-his-father-pro-trump-propaganda-he-saw-it-mueller-report/?utm_term=.4c6383bb8aec (WaPo commenters interpret t his to mean that Trump stole the intellectual property -- hard to follow that line of reasoning.)
Romney’s comment about Russia was idiotic. China is by far the US biggest geopolitical foe and has been for a long time.
Romney is the guy who ran the Winter Olympics. He’s a Park & Rec’s guy. He is not a serious guy. He’s an idiot. He lost the debate to Candy Crowley.
Some Life Long Liberal said... I'm not much interested in defending Obama
Let me try to help you out; The FIRST RULE of Lying is: The Lie MUST BE PLAUSIBLE
If your lie is not plausible, there is no way that Anyone will ever believe it.
Maybe, try something like:
While i ALWAYS defend Obama, with every waking breath i take; in THIS case, i have to say...
This report bad for Trump?
In the way that hitting a grand slam in your fourth (and final) at bat is bad, because you just needed a triple to hit for the cycle.
Sebastian,
"True, but my opinion is that he wanted to weaken the U.S. and make concessions to our adversaries."
Good point - he was very specific that he wanted to decrease American leadership globally.
Kushner is live now being interviewed as a Time 100. He just stated the Russian thing is overblown and he spent more on Facebook ads in 2 hours that Russia did in its entirety.
msdnc has just lost its collective mind. Stating it was sooo much more!!!! (have yet to say what exactly "more" entails)
Kushner is saying lots of other stuff and Kushner is being vilified for what he has not said.
We have known for a while there was a lot of collusion with Russia. A lot of it was by Democrats.
The republicans who were colluding with Russia are the same traitors that support the coup attempt.
You're assuming they have a mind in the 00s that were ubls favorite network till they fires keefums
Obama was a figurehead as well as the laziest President in my lifetime. His only legacy will be his skin color. Instead of working to build political bridges for Obamacare, he let others lead while he pondered over menues and invitee-lists for his many extravagant parties. (Wagyu beef and arugula amuse bouches? Perfect!). That he did nothing to stop Russian interference is classic BO. He didn't do anything about anything substantial
I had hopes he would be at least average, but I had major fears and couldn't vote for him because his entire backstory was clouded with contradictions and obfuscations. Turns out I was right. So where does the nation go for reparations from the disastrous Obama presidency?
I guess that's why we have President Trump.
Rashoman of Mueller Report
1. AOC version - Mueller’s report, by a straight shooter non partisan Republican, shows how Trump obstructed and he should be impeached.
2. Pelosi/ Schumer version - Mueller’s Report needs to be totally released so congress can investigate further. There is no cause for impeachment at this time.
3. Romney Version - Mueller report showed no collusion, but Trump and associates acted badly. I think this is the Chuck version.
4. Trump Version - total vindication, the report is a slime job, and the investigation was a biased Witch Hunt.
5. Other - how in the Heck did Trump survive this? I thought he was a goner, I mean the intel community was against him. This is so confusing, but I’m enjoying the show with a big bucket of pop corn. Or did Trump make a deal? Or did Mueller read the polls and chicken out from recommending impeachment?
6. Conservative Treehouse - The Mueller investigation was a way to hide the spying and other illegal surveillance included attempted entrapment, on the Trump campaign by the us and other government agencies.
Over at "The Hill" Sharyl Attkisson has a more thorough, and more devastating, take on the ineffectual Obama administration's response to Russian interference. The money quote:
"The official reaction to it has begun to unfold as a Keystone Cops-type response by top Obama intel officials. They appear to have been so distracted by political motivations that they lost sight of the very danger they now claim threatens our democracy."
Yes, the "distracted by political motivations" thing that Obama picked up in Chicago politics and his administration internalized. The Daley family made it work for a single city for a long time, but right now Chicago is more of an armpit than a place to live.
I see that the bottom article on the screen snapshot is 'the speech Trump will never give.'
In other words, we'll write what we think he should do, and vilify him for not doing it.
I bet a lot of those writers have a pretty good idea of the resignation letter they'd write for Trump to deliver.
There is a lot of overlap with their prospective articles in the event of his unexpected death, of course.
The news isn't fake, just because it hasn't happened yet.
I am Laslo.
I think Pelosi or staff must have thought through what impeachment hearings would look like:
"Professor x, you have been called here as an expert on obstruction of justice law. In your opinion would a person who destroyed a computer hard drive sought by the FBI be guilty of obstruction of justice? "
"Mueller team member y, we you confirm that among the redacted material was a report that Russia has an audio tape of Bill Clinton in an x-rated telephone conversation with Monica Lewinsky?"
It's not clear to me that these kinds of questions won't be raised by non-impeachment Congressional investigations.
WTF does this even mean?
ou're assuming they have a mind in the 00s that were ubls favorite network till they fires keefums
Who wasn't Obama soft on, other than conservatives in his own country?
He did manage to lose the Democrats 1,000 seats across the nation so there is that softness.
Ms lunacy, they would have been the pro Soviet channel in the 80s, now they are pro Qatar and pro iran.
From the article:
In 2010, he [Obama] and Eric Holder, his Attorney General, declined to prosecute Julian Assange, who then went on to help Russia hack the Democratic National Committee's emails in 2016.
I do not believe we can assume the Russians hacked the DNC. When the FBI was investigating the hacking of the DNC servers, the FBI never actually examined the DNC servers. Instead, the DNC had a DNC contractor, Crowdstrike, provide the FBI with “images of servers, forensic copies, as well as a host of other forensic information we [the DNC] collected from our systems.”
So, readers, I guess we are supposed to assume the honesty of the DNC, an organization that cheated on Bernie during the Democrat primaries, and the truthfulness of their hired hands, Crowdstrike, who could easily doctor copies of the data given to the FBI to make it seem that the Russians did the hacking. It goes without saying that none of this bullshit would ever hold up in court.
Frankly, I trust NOTHING from the DNC that is even remotely connected to the Trump/Russia hoax – or from Crowdstrike – or for that matter, from the FBI.
Actually, among other things, the article is just another way to continue the false Trump/Russia narrative. The author seeks to assign great importance to Russian “interference” in the election.
Why did Obama go soft on Russia?”
I read somewhere that the Russian social media ads numbered around 3500, for which the Russians paid thousands, that half of the ads were run AFTER the election and that only about 10% even mentioned Trump. Hillary spent $768 million and that doesn’t count what the DNC spent for her. The primaries and the presidential election all together cost billions. Obama would have been an idiot to worry about 3500 Russian social media ads.
Romney Version - Mueller report showed no collusion, but Trump and associates acted badly.
Mitt, poor Mitt. He apparently feels compelled to trash-talk Trump, who is the king of trash talk. If poor Mitt isn’t careful he is going to end up a laughing stock.
Most of the Russian ads were designed to foment distrust and division within American society along racial and cultural lines. Why would Obama and the Dems want to stop that? It was the same thing they were doing.
Obama didn’t make a big deal about the Russian interference because it wasn’t a big deal.
I agree it wasn't a big deal, but maybe the real reason he didn't do anything was because of his and Hillary's involvement in spygate. Once you start scrutinizing things, especially with a Republican Congress, you never know what might get exposed.
Anonymous said...
WTF does this even mean?
ou're assuming they have a mind in the 00s that were ubls favorite network till they fires keefums
------------------------------------------------------
A: You are going to have to order the secret 'Narciso Decoder Ring' via the Althouse Amazon portal. If you wait a week or so Amazon regularly features it as a special for 20% off. Get one for all your loved ones.
You gotta buy the Ovaltine, first.
I just figured it out!! Narciso is Q!
I’m beginning to wonder whether Narciso is a performance artist.
“I do not believe we can assume the Russians hacked the DNC. When the FBI was investigating the hacking of the DNC servers, the FBI never actually examined the DNC servers. Instead, the DNC had a DNC contractor, Crowdstrike, provide the FBI with “images of servers, forensic copies, as well as a host of other forensic information we [the DNC] collected from our systems.” “
Also keep in mind that the FBI portion of the forensic examination was headed by Mr “Insurance Policy” Peter Strzok himself, hand picked apparently, by DNI Clapper.
BTW - a lot of people wondered what Strzok was doing between when he was removed from the Mueller investigation in mid 2017, where he had been the lead FBI agent, and when he was fired roughly a year later. Turns out that he had been supervising the FBI agents working on the Mueller investigation, except that he was back in FBI HQ doing it. Apparently the FBI never gave up control over the 40 agents they had assigned to the Mueller was investigation, contrary to what the DoJ had done, and those FBI agents were writing memos to keep HQ up to date on what was going on with the investigation, and apparently Strzok was the one they were sending the memos to. No one should be surprised here, since his sorry ass was one of the primary ones being protected by the existence of the Mueller investigation (and he appears to have played a significant role in creating and staffing the investigation).
When do the Brits start investigating Obama for interfering with the Brexit vote?
Usama bin Laden loves MSNBC before it fired Keith Olberman?
Anybody else have their decoder ring to verify?
I wonder if the media will stop sniffing and licking Obama's ass long enough to provide a sober assessment of this and many other fuck ups in his administration? Its o.k fellas, who helped get him elected twice. What more do you feel you need to do?
Life is too strange to make things up:
https://www.businessinsider.com/osama-bin-laden-hates-fox-news-and-thinks-msnbc-is-not-neutral-because-they-fired-keith-olbermann-2012-5
Other people sockpuppet and dissemble.
My decider ring is legit!
narciso is always worth a read, btw.
Thanks:
https://mobile.twitter.com/JordanSchachtel/status/1120699898284867584
Carol @9:59 re: state databases. Soros' Secretary of state initiative has spent million to get prog secretaries of state elected, so there's that. Obama has his own database from his Obamacare navigators which is separate from the DNC's. Hillary's campaign lost that tug o war IIRC, so I expect Big trouble from "behind the curtain."
Yeak, I love checking out Narciso's links, and I never have a problem getting them to work. That's actually one of the main reasons I come here every day.
its about graham escorting Qatari lobbyists to see mike Pompeo, note who their big bete noire was last summer and fall, whose team they represent in Libya, Egypt Syria,
Because Obama was Putin's stooge and butt boy. Remember he told the Russians he could be more flexible with them after the 2012 election. No collusion there. LOL
I don't do Faceborg but after the election and all this Russian misinformation misinformation came out, some of the stuff that was pushed on me at certain sites started to make a little sense. I was pointed to articles about how the Ukrainian nationalists were just the same old anti-Semites and neo-Nazis that Ukrainian nationalists always are (natch); I recall plenty of news stories too on cable (CNN, MSNBC, BBC, etc) that bore the same message: Ukrainians bad.
The angle pushed was based on an algorithm that i.d.'d me as a lefty, ready to believe the worst about Ukrainians. I find that amusing to the Nth degree!
Narr
I wonder if my infrequent visits here had anything to do with that
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/mitch-mcconnell-tries-gaslighting-obama-russia
In part he counted on Clinton coming in behind. His flexibility cost him.
" how bad is the Mueller Report for Obama, really?"
Not nearly as bad as if he were a Republican.
Ray - SoCal said...
Rashoman of Mueller Report
5 and 6 are mutually compatible.
Now that the Mueller report has been released interesting facts are starting to come out. Judicial Watch is bringing a lot of them out, and people like Brian CAte are tweeting about them.
Did you know that Hillary has multiple email accounts on her BLACKBERRY that she apparently conducted State Department business on? Over and above her bathroom server. I found that out today.
Did you know that Clinton email records were found in the Obama White House, specifically, the Executive Office of the President? Found that out today.
No one knows what Huber is doing. Unlike Mueller- nothing's leaked. And there are other investigations that have apparently been going on simultaneously with the Mueller one. And they haven't been looking at Trump....
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1120739567584333830.html
I think that it is because Obama was afraid to have to deal with Putin.
"Why did Obama go soft on Russia?"
Love of adopted country, perhaps?
Vote for Bernie, progs. If you liked Obama, you'll love Bernie.
Just be prepared to get your hands dirty when the trials start.
CNN got their a&& handed to them election night. They are going to get even with Trump for that if it takes forever.
I am surprised the Editor's Update does not describe Scott Jennings as "a former CNN contributor".
jvb
well if you claim stepan bandera, as a national hero, which is the svoboda line, yes it gets awkward, mind you he was the 'moderate' nationalist, who cleansed the border region of vodjedina (sic), subsequently he was given sanctuary in munich, which didn't save him from a smersh assassin, stashinsky in 1957, it makes for awkward conversation,
Real late to this but here's a really good piece on what the author calls the "Trump Doctrine".
Ditto, listen to Narciso.
He has, among his links, the material for the third draft of history.
One day.
What you have in the US are mutually incompatible views of reality.
I am not speaking of the political press, which is an organized propaganda system, but of the people.
There is no bringing them together, ever again.
There is no point, or hope, in reason and rational persuasion.
buwaya said: "There is no bringing them together, ever again."
Perhaps true. But if so, who will protect the Philippines from China?
But you may be indifferent to that as well, depending on exactly how lofty your detachment is.
In the end, nobody will protect the Philippines from China.
And there is nothing anyone can do about that.
The only way through is, as for any weak party faced with overwhelming force, to bend with the wind.
The Pax Americana is a historical episode that is coming to an end.
Many will suffer the consequences of this ending.
Buwaya & Pax Americana
Perhaps so. The question I ask myself, when I see all the “anti fascist” talk, and the hyperbole about Nazis, and loud assertions of the superiority of the contemporary, is whether America would fight Hitler today. And I doubt it. I think the red part of the country might, and I think the blue part would not. Is there a Hitler in the offing? Probably not, but Putin is certainly a bad guy with ambition. I can imagine him invading places. I think the part of the country least likely to protect Europe or the Middle East from Putin is the part screaming about collusion with Putin.
Thanks I look around for some odds and ends, McIntyre is a anti interventionist, across the board, but hes good at busting narratives
Why would China want the phillipines they already have it as a market. If memory served the Kaiser had some designs on it.
Yes the world of serenity is the most charitable view, more likely it would be like that trek episode the Omega glory.
Putin might want to settle long standing accounts with Poland the Baltic states but I dont see him invading the west, if he could neutralize it.
Putin won't be invading anyone that the US could even have an arguable interest in defending.
Putin is a clever secret policeman who is playing a weak hand well, not what the usual frauds in the Western media present him to be-- the best simulacrum of Der Furor (he's European, he's Russian, he's white, he has a funny name, and he clearly despises our eye-deels and our ee-leets!) that they can come up with to distract from their own corruption and ineptitude.
Narr
Personally I don't like him or his rump-empire, but we've needed Russia before and we could need them again
Putin won't be invading anyone that the US could even have an arguable interest in defending.
Putin is a clever secret policeman who is playing a weak hand well, not what the usual frauds in the Western media present him to be-- the best simulacrum of Der Furor (he's European, he's Russian, he's white, he has a funny name, and he clearly despises our eye-deels and our ee-leets!) that they can come up with to distract from their own corruption and ineptitude.
Narr
Personally I don't like him or his rump-empire, but we've needed Russia before and we could need them again
Personally I don't like him or his rump-empire, but we've needed Russia before and we could need them again
Agree and well said.
I have always assumed that Narciso just wasn't a native speaker of English.
Why would China want the phillipines they already have it as a market.
Strategically, China wants to break out of and beyond the chain of islands — including the Philippines and Japan — which completely hem it in on all (seagoing) sides and make it possible for the U.S. (much like NATO did with the Soviet Union) to prevent China's (the USSR's) navy from effectively intruding beyond it. Acquiring the Philippines (or reducing it to a totally subservient “ally”) would (in large part) accomplish this.
Such confidence in the rationality of Putin's future actions, from our point of view. If Russia were to invade/occupy one or more of the Baltic states (members of NATO, one might note), and then thumb his nose at NATO and the U.S., what would/should we do? Everybody's totally sure Putin would never do that, right?
Putin would never consider rolling troops through say Georgia or the like.
I thought Russia did very well under Obama. They were able to maintain territory in Georgia (specifically land that captured a key valve on a gas pipeline from the Caspian Sea to Europe, thus forcing Germany to buy gas from Russia), annex Crimea, sow a civil war in the Ukraine, provide chemical weapons for Assad to use on his people in Syria, allowed to protect said chemical weapons, and shootdown a civilian 777 airliner without any major repercussions. Oh sure, a couple of sanctions that were ignored, but really, when did Obama go hard on Putin? The 2012 debates?
Totally sure Putin won't do something crazy? No, but my bet is, he won't. Like any good Russian leader he plays the long game, and one thing he and Trump seem to have accomplished (inadvertently on P's part and slyly on T's) is to scare the crap out of Russia's Western neighbors, and in this age of cyber- and quasi-conflict, I'm not sure it's obvious that Russia will dominate in those realms.
No, we needn't seek the bad guy in the Kremlin, the threat comes from further south and further east.
Narr
And further back
buwaya: That is certainly a possible outcome, but the last time a regional power tried to take over every island in the southeast Pacific, a really big war resulted. That regional power ended up very much second-best in the end. Of course, that regional power didn't have nuclear weapons at the time.
It sounds like you've given this quite a bit of thought, understandable under the circumstances.
Many people are focused on Russia--and they are much closer to Europe, and our eastern European allies--but China has or will have the resources soon to attempt a stunt like that, and they seem crazy enough to try it. They worry me much more than Russia. Russia is run by thugs for thugs, and a large percentage of the population has yet to recover from the after-effects of Stalin's terror, but in the end they have more in common culturally with the West than the Chinese do.
So I took another layman's look at the Stone Indictment.
The first few paras explain that the DNC claimed that they were hacked, and that their contractor said the Rooskies did it.
That's it. No proof that it even happened that way.
Narr
Sic 'em, Bob!
well you look at what putin actually controls, none of the Baltic countries, that brings one back to the time of Catherine the great, and going further back the setting of sienkewitz's the deluge, does he have ambitions on Poland, probably, he holds more territory in the Caucasus, but only half of the Ukraine, which where the were after the first Turkish war.
Kirk Parker said...
I have always assumed that Narciso just wasn't a native speaker of English.
4/23/19, 11:21 PM
I figured he had two broken arms and was typing with his dick. Sometimes he gets excited... ;-)
buwaya said...
In the end, nobody will protect the Philippines from China.
And there is nothing anyone can do about that.
We could sell Duterte forty improved Pershing IV missiles with the range to hit Beijing. That would do it. Nothing in the whole of the Philippine archipelago is worth the loss of Beijing to China. One Second After, they'd be back to the Warring States period. Enjoy your Navy fellas-which warlord will they answer to?
Post a Comment