dagblog - Comments for "Media Builds Up Enemies For Hillary's Wars"

Yeah, but admiring Castro for

PeraclesPlease — Sat, 13 Aug 2016 20:42:24 +0000

Yeah, but admiring Castro for healthcare and education wore quite thin 40 years ago, despite Moore's "Sicko". Can't anyone update the 60's? Are we stuck with our childhood ramblings and infatuations?

Snide, but appreciated,

A Guy Called LULU — Sat, 13 Aug 2016 19:36:28 +0000

In reply to Awww, MoA wishes Fidel happy

Snide, but appreciated, Thanks, I am glad that you mentioned Castro's birthday. In my opinion, the long overdue steps taken by Obama to mend relations with Cuba are one of the notable accomplishments of his administration.

A twitterstorm to defend

PeraclesPlease — Sat, 13 Aug 2016 14:00:30 +0000

In reply to Media Builds Up Enemies For Hillary's Wars

A twitterstorm to defend Russia on doping charges - how it couldn't be, how the informer made it up, how it's anti-Russian racism/bias - but oops, even to the Swiss manufacturer's surprise it was possible.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/06/sports/olympics/doping-sample-bottles-no-longer-seen-as-tamper-proof-endure.html?_r=0

Oh, I'm sorry - it's from the NY Times, must be false. Let's go with Consortium News instead - their speculation always turns out right.

Awww, MoA wishes Fidel happy

PeraclesPlease — Sat, 13 Aug 2016 06:52:23 +0000

In reply to Media Builds Up Enemies For Hillary's Wars

Awww, MoA wishes Fidel happy birthday. How touching.

Reading the comments on the "Media Builds Up..." thread there, I get the feeling these folks are just as unhinged as Trump fans, but fortunately not invested into the 2nd Amendment. All that polling place conspiracy theory will fit in nicely with Trump's "patrol the polls". Which is kind of awful for me, because about 5 years ago MoA seemed to be much more sane and evaluative as an alternate aggregation & opinion site. But then time passes on.

Landslide... (original version in there somewhere)

I have never claimed I

ocean-kat — Fri, 12 Aug 2016 19:10:04 +0000

In reply to The MoA article makes the

I have never claimed I "accept as undisputed fact" that it was Russian hackers. I haven't addressed that issue at all. I've simply pointed out that your link's claim of propaganda at the NYT doesn't contain evidence or even a convincing argument to support it. In fact it uses lies to make it's case. In your replies you seem to admit your link lies but you claim the lies don't matter. Your link is a better example of propaganda in the media than the NYT article it critiques.

All news organizations have at one time or another done bad or biased reporting. NYT Judith Miller's reporting is one example. But just because Miller was a propagandist for the Iraq war isn't proof that every article at the NYT is propaganda. Each specific allegation must be supported by evidence. Again your link not only contains no evidence but also contains false information.

Of course anonymous sources must be viewed critically. I acknowledged that in my first post. But a substantial portion of our information comes from anonymous sources, not just the DC centric reporting but from the opposition press as well. Do you reject all anonymous sources including those used by Tom's dispatch, Crooks and Liars, Consortium News, or what ever source you look to for outside the main stream news? Or do you accept uncritically the anonymous sources from your favorite sites while rejecting completely the anonymous sources that you disagree with? I'll point out that every government scandal from Watergate to Abu Ghraib was at least in part revealed by anonymous government sources.

Let us now move away from lies and propaganda from your link to the propaganda you're trying to push here. You claim that the, " named head of the intelligence organization which should have the best information to either verify or not says that they have no proof." In a previous comment you claimed, " Clapper made an unambiguous statement saying that they had no proof so far that the Russians did the hacking." That's not true. Clapper stated he was not yet ready to make the call on attribution. He said it was likely the work of a nation/state rather than an independent hacker group. That is certainly not an, " unambiguous statement saying that they had no proof."

There are a few possibilities. It could be they have no proof. It could be they have evidence but it's insufficient to make an official attribution. Another possibility is they have proof but for political reasons they aren't ready to make an official and public attribution. Official accusations usually require an official response. It's not uncommon for governments to delay making official accusations until they are ready to make an official response i.e. to take action.

I feel no need to response to your distorted summary of our past discussions. I stand by all my comments here. If you want to stop losing debates so badly I suggest you find better links and make more convincing arguments

The MoA article makes the

A Guy Called LULU — Fri, 12 Aug 2016 17:20:19 +0000

In reply to Anyone can say anything on

The MoA article makes the charge that mainstream U.S. media aids and abets the dissemination of propaganda which includes the demonization of our [always necessary] evil enemy of the day. You apparently accept as undisputed fact [which is the way almost all U.S. media has come to present the idea that it was Russian hackers who released the emails and if it was Russian then it was Putin and if it was Putin it is evil and of a nature that is … well … un-American which is just another way of blowing a metaphorical dog whistle] and you indicate that you believe it just because the NYT says it. Has the NYT ever put out any 'shit reporting? [Hint: that is a rhetorical question, no need to answer unless you actually believe they have never put out any 'shit'] The NYT bases its reporting and unquestioned conclusions, in this instance, on multiple un-named sources while the named head of the intelligence organization which should have the best information to either verify or not says that they have no proof. People, some of whom want to know what is really going on even if it is disappointing and disillusioning, are encouraged to be shocked by and pissed off at Putin and not even consider other possibilities and in this way are given a nudge in the direction of ignoring the embarrassing information about the way the Democratic nomination process was carried out. The information in the hacked emails is more important to this subject at this time than is knowing who among the many hackers in the world, most of whom are not associated with and/or directed by, a national government, did this particular hack. Whether this obscuration and misdirection is a deliberate, consciously designed tactic, or just the result of the egocentric predicament of the established reporters and their institutions, the effect is the same if the biased D.C. centric reporting is accepted uncritically. Of course it is possible that you believe that the NYT has never put out any ‘shit’ [to again use one of your favorite shitty words] reporting.

It is probably necessary at this time to point out that looking critically at a demonizing charge against Putin is not the same as defending Putin and is not a claim that Putin is a misunderstood good-guy even though it is true that Putin will be misunderstood if everything that can be thrown at him is thrown and much that is thrown is twisted and exaggerated and spun for affect rather than for illumination. And it should be noted, properly understanding Putin and the Russians in general could be of existential importance especially if an aggressive America -First interventionist advised by aggressive war mongers is the CiC. Examining how the NYT reports news, in this case, is about the quality of the news much more than about Putin and whether or not he is actually guilty as charged.

You have in recent months downplayed any significance of anything we have come to know that might be embarrassing to the Clinton campaign. You have also praised Clinton’s money grubbing from rich donors and corporations as being more of a high minded Democratic team effort because much of the money would go to down-ticket candidates which will be important if anything good is actually to be accomplished during another Clinton administration. Whoops, more damned emails that must be hidden from us if at all possible and if they are revealed we must be encouraged to play our team part and ignore what they reveal. New information should not be allowed to change our viewpoint. We do our part if we ignore them and instead follow the misdirection and show our spirited indignation that anybody would spy on us. How evil is a government which would spy on another government? Perish the thought. And the very idea of being so corrupt as to try to influence another country’s elections is just beyond the pale, except I guess for the one exceptional country, many of whose citizens are easily convinced our might makes right and hypocrisy is only a characteristic of “others’.

So, back to the election. We all probably know by now who we will vote for. There are good arguments, along with some very bad ones, for voting for Hillary. There is no good argument though, IMO, for not attempting to accurately see and understand the nature of the candidates we are left with, not just the bad parts relating to the candidate we hope loses.

Here is another essay worth reading. Call it what you will even if 'shit' is the most nuanced word you can come up with, it has some important points. The important link within it is the one suggesting that Hillary's campaign strategy is hurting down ticket candidates.

Anyone can say anything on

ocean-kat — Fri, 12 Aug 2016 07:25:38 +0000

In reply to What Wheeler expressed is not

Anyone can say anything on the internet Lulu but I expect from journalists and pundits the same thing I expect from the people here. I expect them to back up their statements with evidence or at least a well thought out rational convincing argument. Not only weren't the arguments in your link not well thought out or convincing, they were false. Much of it was simply assertions without any evidence at all.

You know lulu, I wrote another paragraph in response but I just deleted it. Your link is shit and I don't want to waste time discussing it. When I link articles here there are always several I could chose. I look for the best article that makes the clearest strongest arguments to support my opinions. Is this really the best writing you can find to inform us of your views? Is this really the best stuff you've read to link to the In The News section here?

Fuck, Clapper made his

PeraclesPlease — Fri, 12 Aug 2016 06:56:33 +0000

In reply to What Wheeler expressed is not

Fuck, Clapper made his statement over 2 weeks ago. Just like the morning of Benghazi we knew/didnt know one set of info, and then we learned more. Ain't that tough.

Terrorists just hit Thailand, including where I was last week. First guess is it's separatists, not ISIS, but they'll find out more throughout the day and coming weeks. It's called breaking news and developing intelligence.

Substitute "security" for "war" in all your ramblings, and you get a more sane take on things. Some of that may be actual war - allies are pushing back on ISIS-held territory, while Putin may be gathering troops for a summer/fall push in Donbas. But there's also lots of concern how to stop the next lonewolf ISIS attack.

You of course dont think Putin invaded Crimea nor put troops and supplies in Donbas, and think Kiev shot down the Malaysian plane, so it's hard to discuss this stuff. A realignment of Putin withthe newly empowered Erdogan is another scary development in a region of surprises, including effects on the Syrian chaos. But you see Putin as a level-headed democrat, while only the US is aggressive.

What Wheeler expressed is not

A Guy Called LULU — Fri, 12 Aug 2016 05:36:49 +0000

In reply to One link is a twitter feed.

What Wheeler expressed is not a complex idea. She said what she intended with way less than the word count that she had available.

We, the U.S.A, are currently, as we always seem to be, engaged in actions which can fairly be called “war”. She believes that there are leaders and potential leaders who are planning to escalate some of those actions and probably begin new ones as well. She said, “The actions to ensure we will escalate our wars are being taken as we speak”.

What is expressed is not intended as nuanced discussion of the various factors which support her conclusion, that has been done many times by many politicos, pundits, political scientists, historians, and bloggers as well. What is expressed is her conclusion. Do you need it to be said in several more different ways with many counterpoints weighed and critiqued to understand, based on what she says above, what her conclusion is? Here is what I think Wheeler is saying.She is saying that the actions to ensure we will escalate our wars are being taken as we speak.

You are a bright guy, do you think that is wrong? Maybe you do. Maybe you are right. I think Wheeler is right.

Whether the number of government sources who put the blame on the Russians, Putin Putin Putin Putin, is one or twenty-one, the sources are either anonymous or are quoting anonymous sources. They may be right but I think it extremely naive of any person to take as a default position that what our government says today is true until proven false [which has consistently happened five or ten or twenty years later] even if their claim is in the New York Times. Clapper made an unambiguous statement saying that they had no proof so far that the Russians did the hacking yet it is almost universally referred to as an accepted fact that they did. Has he updated that answer? Has anybody with a name done so?

If God proclaimed that every influential politician that had ever tried to underhandedly influence an election in a country not their own was about to be hit with a drone strike would you be willing jump up and stand by Hillary’s side? I doubt it but again, maybe I’m wrong.

Putin has been the target of demonizing propaganda for some time now. He may be guilty in this case but I will wait for some evidence before concluding as much. It is more than a coincidence that so much anger and fear is being stoked. It is no coincidence at all that as this is done it distracts attention from the emails and what they reveal.

Yeah, first off, the Clapper

PeraclesPlease — Thu, 11 Aug 2016 23:08:03 +0000

In reply to Is there anything in either

Yeah, first off, the Clapper quote is from July 28, while US intelligence has had another 2 weeks to evaluate its info and go with the Russian charges.

The Guccifer angle points away from an insider data drop, and Rich was killed before the email leak. If Assange knows something more, maybe he can entertain us with some facts rather than a cash dump.

Meanwhile, a guy gets killed at 4:20am walking around north Washington DC west of North Capitol. A quick look at crime statistics within 1500 ft. of Flagler Place shows 19 gun robberies in the last year and 4 attacks with a gun, along with 10 assaults with a dangerous weapon excluding gun and 14 robberies excluding gun.

http://crimemap.dc.gov/Report.aspx

For DC overall year-to-date:

Offense 2015 2016 Percent Change

Homicide 90 84 -7% (total for 2015 was 162)

Sex Abuse 184 170 -8%

Assault w/ a Dangerous Weapon

1,426 1,486 4% (total for 2015 was 2426)

Robbery 1,947 1,867 -4% (total for 2015 was 3446)

Sure, he worked for the DNC, anything's possible, like alien crop circles or Debbie Wasserman Schultz shot him for revenge, Johnny Cash did it just to watch him die or George Zimmerman was in town or he was a very dexterous suicide to shoot himself in the back while talking to his girlfriend. But when I lived in DC, I was rather careful which streets I walked down at 3 or 4am. Not quite as bad as Anacostia, but certainly worrisome.

BTW - if it was a robbery gone bad, the guy(s) who did it might be smart not to run away with the murdered guy's phone and watch unless they want to increase their chance of really long jail time tremendously.