This entire comment thread started with an article which lays out its entire point in the headline, "It's Time For A Little Perspective On Russia". You have not made one response with any reference to anything in that article. I think you avoid doing so because you cannot intelligently argue against either the thesis made clear in the title or the argument made in the body supporting that thesis. Do you believe that our collective media, our elected leaders,our public intellectuals, etc are showing a reasoned perspective on Russia? If you think that posting Youtube ads with some fake news along with leaked or hacked emails which reveal truths about the DNC and other operatives of the campaign to elect Hillary are actually the equivalent of Pearl Harbor just say so? Do you believe that whipping large a percentage of public opinion into believing that is the case has created an accurate perspective on Russia? If you do just say so.  Make yourself clear on that point at least.

  Do you believe that there were no skinhead Nazi loving right wing antisemitic goons involved in the coup in Ukraine? Do you believe they have since become relegated from power and influence in that country?  Do you believe that the oligarchs that took over are less corrupt than the ones they kicked out? Do you believe that it is a legitimate government which by coup removed the lawfully elected government in Ukraine? Do you believe Russia took Crimea by force against the wishes of the overwhelming percentage of its population. Do you believe the Crimean population would now vote differently and vote to rejoin Ukraine? Do you believe that the U.S. did not support the coup in Ukraine clandestinely, diplomatically, and financially? Do you believe that is how to support and spread democracy?

 DYB that it was good policy for the U.S. to instantly recognize the coup overthrow of the legitimately elected government in Venezuela? DYB that it is good policy to try now to bring down that restored government with economic war and threats of military attack? DYB that it was right or even somehow smart to support the coup in Honduras? DYB that policy had good results. 

 DYB that since Putin took over from the totally corrupt drunkard Yeltsin who held power previously because of our support interference and who ordered his military to open fire with artillery on Russia's parliament, that Russia  has dropped anywhere close to the tonnage of bombs on foreign countries as has the U.S.? DYB that Russia was promised that NATO would not move one bit closer to Russia if they left Germany so it could reunite? DYB that promise was violated now that NATO has moved right to Russia's border? Do you believe Russia has a right to exist?

Do you recognize a Gish Gallop when you see one? Do you deny that that is what your several comments above are by definition?  Just like this one of mine except that most things I suggested can be shown definitively to be true. In case you don't know that your method has been formally recognized, here is what a Gish Gallop is:

The Gish gallop is a technique used during debating that focuses on overwhelming one's opponent with as many arguments as possible, without regard for accuracy or strength of the arguments. The term was coined by Eugene Scott and named after the creationist Duane Gish, who used the technique frequently against opponents on the topic of evolution. During a Gish gallop, a debater confronts an opponent with a rapid series of many specious arguments, half-truths, and misrepresentations in a short space of time, which makes it impossible for the opponent to refute all of them within the format being used. In practice, each point raised by the "Gish galloper" takes considerably more time to refute with fact-check than it did to state in the first place. The technique wastes an opponent's time along with that of any audience.  One final question; How is your conduct in this comment thread different than that of a troll?

There is an element of truth in most everything you say but you have stretched all points beyond accuracy and it seems to be for the purpose of making each allegation an indictment. Am I right? I pointed out myself in this very thread that by far the most common subject that I bring up here is foreign policy, so no great insight there. 

Your last sentence you got completely wrong. 

And that until we have truth about all of what the government is doing under our name, it's better to go looking for it in the arguments of those who the government or the powers-that-be are presenting as our supposed enemies.

I do not, have not, suggested that we should instead listen to the story told by alleged or real enemies and give those stories the benefit of any doubt but rather should listen to and consider our own story tellers who have a much better history of getting their stories right than the ones who have a long record of not only getting the story, often a story handed to them, wrong. We should especially look critically at the stories of those with a history of being wrong on very important matters and who have previously proselytized to push the wrong story when they knew or should have known that it was wrong and appear to be doing doing it all over again.  As should as obvious as the things you mention is that I believe and have tried to demonstrate is that all the best analysis of what can be known by the public does not come from the NYT or WAPO. [You have read and I think understand the institutional reasons why that has become so]  Believing that it does seems to me to be as misguided as being a biblical fundamentalist. Too much has been learned since "the book" was written.