Washington Post has been particularly ridiculous this season

[Clodfobble]

To be fair, the backlash and regret over the WMD claims stem from the invasion and war they were used to justify. Unless someone is proposing we invade Russia, I'm not sure there are really the same stakes involved.

Personally, I think we know darn well Russia did it, but to admit how we know would either tip them off to their weaknesses, or else prove that we've done the same shit a thousand times. Anyone remember when the NSA got caught bugging every major leader in Europe?

Frankly I don't give a crap if they did do it. As many have pointed out, all they did was release genuine information. They didn't falsify anything. People are mad because the hack didn't provide the opposition equal time? This ain't Brinkley and Huntley, hire your own damn hackers if you want the RNC's dirty laundry to be aired. Or, you know, try not having any dirty laundry of your own. It's like the mom finds drugs in her kid's room, and he's trying to be mad about how she violated his trust by going through his stuff. You got caught, don't act like you have the moral high ground.

[Pico and ME]

What was really so bad about what they revealed. The email supporting the Democrats manipulation of the primary vote? And so you think that they are crying crocodile tears, or are they just playing the same game the opposition played?

[Undertoad]

The "You can do anything you want... grab em by the pussy" tape was stolen, is that supposed to matter?

[Griff]

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

To be fair, the backlash and regret over the WMD claims stem from the invasion and war they were used to justify. Unless someone is proposing we invade Russia, I'm not sure there are really the same stakes involved.

Hillary's paranoia surrounding Russia colored her thought process about a no fly zone in Syria and could have led to military conflict with Russia. Our baby-boomer foreign policy lense distorts reality badly. Trump is a damn kook and could get taken advantage of, but turning down the anti-Russian propaganda is necessary on a small planet.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Griff

Hillary's paranoia surrounding Russia colored her thought process about a no fly zone in Syria and could have led to military conflict with Russia.

Do you really not understand why Putin feared Hilary? He could not manipulate her. If Hilary has paranoia, then so do Senators McCain, Graham, McConnell, Speaker Ryan, and most all moderate Senators and diplomats. As well as virtually all American intelligence agencies.

Hilary, Kerry, and other American diplomats were not flakey, kneejerk, and emotional. So Putin needed them replaced by people who are emotional and are not chess players such as Palin, Fiorina, or Cruz. As David Brooks accurately notes, Getting Trump was a bonus.

Military conflicts with Russia - as with any other nation - are avoided by acknowledging and addressing problems up front. Why were Assad's weapons of mass destructive so quickly removed from start to finish all in Oct 2013? The act was phenomenal. Even Russia was fully manipulated into participating in an international coalition (that included Norway, China, Italy, Denmark, Netherlands, Finland, and an international UN team) to dismantle warheads and remove chemicals for Sarin and Mustard gas. All destroyed on a US military cargo ship Cape Ray. It all happened because American and international diplomats confronted Syria and Russia up front with a "no exception permitted" attitude - the red line.

Avoiding war means a hard headed attitude supported by long term planning - that only chess players understand. That was Obama, Scowcroft, both Clintons, Powell, Holbrooke, Kerry, Richard Clarke, George Mitchell, and a long list of other American diplomats.

List of weak kneed strategists included George Jr and Condi Rice. People such as these make war likely. As a result, George Jr left office with two of the longest wars in American history and with American positions deteriorating. A pathetic response by George Jr to China's 9 Dash Line (including Spratly and Parcel Islands) may have made war likely in the next ten years. A firm handed approach backed up with a chess player attitude averts war.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by tw

"the red line."

Bwahahahahahahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!
Stop please, I can't breathe while laughing this hard and I have to wipe the coffee off my monitor.

[Undertoad]

Originally Posted by tw

Why were Assad's weapons of mass destructive so quickly removed from start to finish all in Oct 2013?

Because they weren't? Here we go again, again:

https://foreignpolicy.com/2016/08/23...mical-weapons/

The world’s chemical weapons watchdog has repeatedly found traces of deadly nerve agents in laboratories that Syria insisted were never part of its chemical weapons program, raising new questions about whether Damascus has abided by its commitments to destroy all of its armaments, according to a highly confidential new report.
...
In a confidential two-page summary of the report, OPCW Director-General Ahmet Uzumcu writes that the majority of 122 samples taken at “multiple locations” in Syria “indicate potentially undeclared chemical weapons-related activities.” Many of Syria’s explanations for the presence of undeclared agents, he added, “are not scientifically or technically plausible, and … the presence of several undeclared chemical warfare agents is still to be clarified.”

Four months ago:

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/0...nations-227385

Even after he supposedly turned over his entire stockpile of chemical weapons three years ago, Bashar Assad is still crossing Barack Obama's "red line," a U.N. investigation has found.

U.S. officials confirmed Wednesday that the probe had determined that the Syrian president and his regime were responsible for at least two cases of the deadly use of chlorine in the Arab country's civil war since 2013. Investigators also blamed the Islamic State terrorist group in an incident involving mustard gas.

In all the confusion it's hard to remember who has WMD and who doesn't. All we know for absolute certain, I suppose, is that Assad had them in 2013.

And that means, from when he got them, until 2013, nobody gave a flying fuck. We can call that "leading from behind" because the UN, the US, the EU and whomever else is supposed to give a fuck, actually gave no fucks at all, and then very suddenly pretended to give a fuck when they were actually used politically important.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Maybe instead of not giving a fuck they didn't know. Can we just barge into any country and demand to check every corner of it without evidence or provocation?

[Undertoad]

You don't give a fuck? I don't either, but it's interesting.

What they did do, was have all the countries sign a Chemical Weapons Convention, in which not only chemical weapons but all the "precursor" chemicals are scheduled and limited, and can't be exported between signatory countries.

OK that didn't work 100%. But perhaps it worked in other cases, who knows?

Right now, the debate is whether Assad will be allowed to have a government after this particular shit is done hitting this particular fan.

[Griff]

Originally Posted by tw

Do you really not understand why Putin feared Hilary? He could not manipulate her. If Hilary has paranoia, then so do Senators McCain, Graham, McConnell, Speaker Ryan, and most all moderate Senators and diplomats. As well as virtually all American intelligence agencies.

"You're soaking in it Democrats!"


"Madge, you've been soaking my foreign policy in Neo-Conservatism!?"


"No no no, it"s only Neo-Conservatism when Republicans do it!"

[glatt]

The Post ran a long front page article clarifying how they got the story wrong and fixing.

[Griff]

I'm glad for that. WaPo seemed more balanced during the election cycle, I'd hate to see them squander their reserved good will in the on-going neo-con red scare.

This is making me realize how out of touch the Democrat establishment is. Somehow releasing the actual emails of the Clinton campaign was worse than the shenanigans the party establishment pulled on Bernie the one guy on the left who had the country's pulse and could have bettered Trump. Placed in the context of our meddling in foreign elections and invasion mania, it doesn't seem to warrant a full on panic. Did they really believe their communications were secure when nobody's are?

[tw]

Originally Posted by glatt

The Post ran a long front page article clarifying how they got the story wrong and fixing.

Honest and independent news services do that. NY Times did same previously with a reporter that invented stories. Then cited editors who failed to do their job - tomake sure news was honestly reported.

Extremist lefty and neocon news services would not do that. Fox News did not do same with Roger Ailes's sexual misconduct. Neocon sevices are especially flagrant and dishonest these days.

Some are quick accuse NY Times, Washington Post, the network news anchormen and other responsible news sources. Some drink too much kool-aid. Same persons never once confronted and attacked Fox News - that has a history of perverting honestly for a political agenda. Fox News even denied people in the New Orleans Superdome and Convention Center were without food and water for four days. Reporting that honestly was contrary to their political objectives.

Some remained convinced that Saddam has WMDs even after George Jr said he did not. Some still deny a red line that successfully removed WMDs from 13 some sites in Syria. Still deny chemical weapons were removed by an international coalition with total Russian cooperation. Shipped out to Italy by a flotilla of Scandinavian ships. And were destroyed in a US Navy ship.

International response to that red line was so severe that WMD were removed in less than one month in 2013. Nobody initially thought it was possible that fast. It was that quick because the entire world responded that massively to a red line. Only honest news services reported all that.

One must learn from responsible news sources - not from extremist news services intentionally created to promote the party line.

Only honest new services, that will even publish details of their own mistakes, will honestly report the news.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Toad is watching.

[Undertoad]

When UT says the Post did poorly, tw says the Post did well.

When the Post agrees that it did poorly, tw says that UT did poorly