The Putin Summit - God help us.
cramer said:
There is hope - provided Mueller can stay. Marcy Wheeler, of https://www.emptywheel.net/ went to the FBI and is now a witness in the case. She was a guest on a podcast yesterday. It's worth a listen. Wheeler's part starts at 48:40.
https://crooked.com/podcast/helsinki-warmed-over/
eta - This is the post Wheeler wrote explaining her reasons for going to the FBI.
https://www.emptywheel.net/2018/07/03/putting-a-face-mine-to-the-risks-posed-by-gop-games-on-mueller-investigation/
Marcy Wheeler , after months and months of thinking about it, went to the FBI to give them the name of a source who played a significant role in parts of the hack attack. She is waiting for the right time to release the name of this person to the public. At about 59:30 of the podcast linked above, she says that when she does release the name it's going to be a big surprise.
Wheeler has a lot of credibility.
eta - Wheeler says in her interview that she know places where of the evidence comes from in the indictment, and there's a lot more than just Crowdstrike.
nan said:
ridski said:Yeah, well that is the way it is. Deal with it. Cause when you don't people die.
No one’s saying that the thing that happened didn’t happen, we’re just saying that you shouldn’t believe the people telling you that the thing that happened happened. I mean, obviously, it happened, but when THEY tell you it happened, don’t believe them.
Did THEY tell you that?
conandrob240 said:
nan doesn’t get sarcasm. And she must get her facts and info from the side of a can of beans.
Nan, who exactly is dying if Trump didn’t meet with Putin at this time? Or if he, I don’t know, met with Putin but maybe didn’t disparage our country’s entire intelligence capabilities to a foreign leader? Who would have died? I’m not following.
What is wrong with you lately? You just spew out the personal attacks without even knowing the context. We were talking about not trusting information coming from the military industrial complex and intelligence community. Remember the Iraq War when everyone believed beyond a shadow of a doubt based on what CNN, MSNBC and the New York Times were saying that Iraq had WMDs? A million innocent people died because we fell for that one. Let's not forget, also, that our intelligence agency has interfered in 81 elections in other countries and taken out democratically elected leaders and replaced them with tyrants. They even got Boris Yeltsin elected in Russia.
So, excuse me if I'm not a true believer in Robert Muller who helped get us into a made up war:
And excuse me for thinking that the meeting between Trump and Putin could be a good thing. We should not be insisting that Trump get tough with Russia. We should want them to work things out to decrease the threat of nuclear war. Nuclear war is much worse than wikileaks exposing how the DNC cheated Bernie out of the nomination. Here are some people who presented this view in an open letter:
Common Ground: For Secure Elections and True National Security
An open letter by Gloria Steinem, Noam Chomsky, John Dean, Governor Bill Richardson, Walter Mosley, Michael Moore, Valerie Plame, and others.
https://www.thenation.com/article/common-ground-for-secure-elections-and-true-national-security/
excerpt: " . . . Many Americans remain deeply concerned about reports of Russian interference with the 2016 election. Meanwhile, relations between the United States and Russia are at their lowest and most dangerous point in several decades. For the sake of democracy at home and true national security, we must reach common ground to safeguard common interests—taking steps to protect the nation’s elections and to prevent war between the world’s two nuclear superpowers."
drummerboy said:
Steve said:it's not you that's confused.
nan said:
No one is making the case that Putin did not hack. Everyone knows that countries hack each other all the time and no one hacks more than the US. We have interfered in something like 80 elections. It makes sense that someone would try to hack into ours. Also, no one is supporting Putin, the authoritarian or Trump. It would be nice to have some other people instead of Trump and Putin, but that is what it is for now. What is being asked is real proof of these claims. The skepticism comes from years of intelligence reports meant to manufacture consent for more wars and regime changes. The CIA and FBI and NSA are not benevolent entities. They lie all the time and the possess huge power that trancend presidential terms. News sources such as CNN and MSNBC are increasingly staffed with ex-CIA personal and retired generals (like Brennan--no one should be looking to him--he's reprehensible). These are the talking heads that thoughtfully try to convince us that the bombing of Syria is a good thing and soon that leadership in Iran needs to be replaced. You rarely hear an anti-war sentiment. Anyway, after the WMD's in Iraq (which Robert Muller famously lied about), everyone should be skeptical of any of any claim, no matter how many people seem to agree. A million innocent people died because of the war in Iraq. All is not forgiven just because it's Trump. Hatred of Trump should not interfere with your critical thinking.
nan said:Maybe I'm just a bit confused . . .
Ray McGovern, former CIA briefer of The President’s Daily Brief, and William Binney, former Technical Director at NSA critique the indictments and Memo to the President Ahead of Monday’s Summit https://consortiumnews.com/2018/07/15/memo-to-the-president-ahead-of-mondays-summit/ With Friday’s indictments of Russian intelligence officers, Ray McGovern and Bill Binney have written an open letter to President Trump making clear that the “evidence” behind the indictments is as fraudulent as the intelligence alleging WMD in Iraq. It is being published exclusively here ahead of the Trump-Putin summit on Monday.
It's also you.
I think Steve may be wondering why you trust the word of some former CIA and NSA agents over the word of others.
conandrob240 said:
nan doesn’t get sarcasm. And she must get her facts and info from the side of a can of beans.
Nan, who exactly is dying if Trump didn’t meet with Putin at this time? Or if he, I don’t know, met with Putin but maybe didn’t disparage our country’s entire intelligence capabilities to a foreign leader? Who would have died? I’m not following.
I hope one of my last few posts cleared that mystery up for you. I'm sure your superior brain and razor sharp instincts will get you a firm grasp on the obvious. Fingers crossed.
Wow, Rachel Maddow is showing headlines from across the US on the Helsinki disaster. Wish I could round them all up and post here. I know we'll be talking about a new disaster tomorrow but for the moment it feels as if the whole country is on the same page. Just a bit of optimism in the midst of the discussion.
terp said:
It is interesting that those who said the Intelligence community got us into an illegitimate war in Iraq that killed hundreds of thousands of people are now saying questioning them is treason.
I think that when someone says that the CIA and FBI and NSA are not benevolent entities and that they lie all the time, it’s apt to question why they think we should believe the statements of one group of former members of those organizations over the statements of others.
ridski said:
I think Steve may be wondering why you trust the word of some former CIA and NSA agents over the word of others.
There’s also nan’s “No one is making the case” — except for the people nan quoted making the case.
nan, nothing you say clears anything else you said up. I think you may truly be off the rails.
I think guys like Binney are pretty trustworthy. I mean he was unceremoniously ousted from the intelligence community for telling the truth.
Alas, guys like James Clapper can lie and lie but they still get respect because their lies serve the status quo.
ETA: this was in response to ridski. My original post on this thread was not really responding to him in particular but he did respond to it.
I'd also add that while I think Binney is trustworthy, that doesn't mean he's always right.
terp said:
I think guys like Binney are pretty trustworthy. I mean he was unceremoniously ousted from the intelligence community for telling the truth.
Alas, guys like James Clapper can lie and lie but they still get respect because their lies serve the status quo.
Thomas Drake, Scott Ritter, Lisa Ling, Cian Westmoreland, Phillip Giraldi and Jessylyn Radack, who were members of VIPS at the time, did not sign the July 24,2017 memo and have resigned from VIPS.
ridski said:
terp said:I think that when someone says that the CIA and FBI and NSA are not benevolent entities and that they lie all the time, it’s apt to question why they think we should believe the statements of one group of former members of those organizations over the statements of others.
It is interesting that those who said the Intelligence community got us into an illegitimate war in Iraq that killed hundreds of thousands of people are now saying questioning them is treason.
Yes, it is important to see the motivation and you are right to ask this question. For example, when ex-CIA heads like John Brennan become a talking head at MSNBC, you should consider that what he's saying might be propaganda. However, when ex-CIA members form a group like VIPS, in direct response to CIA corruption you can expect they will be more trustworthy since that was the motivation:
"Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) is a group of former officers of the United States Intelligence Community. It was formed in January 2003 when the group issued a statement accusing the Bush Administration of misrepresenting U.S. national intelligence information in order to push the US and its allies toward that year's US-led invasion of Iraq. The group issued a letter stating that intelligence analysts were not being heeded by policy makers. The group initially numbered 25, mostly retired analysts.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veteran_Intelligence_Professionals_for_Sanit
DaveSchmidt said:
ridski said:There’s also nan’s “No one is making the case” — except for the people nan quoted making the case.
I think Steve may be wondering why you trust the word of some former CIA and NSA agents over the word of others.
Thanks. Interestingly, I addressed that in my first lengthy response I realized would be mostly ignored or misunderstood, so after writing it I hit my favorite button “Return to all Discussions” and responded briefly and with snark to something else instead.
terp said:
I think guys like Binney are pretty trustworthy. I mean he was unceremoniously ousted from the intelligence community for telling the truth.
Alas, guys like James Clapper can lie and lie but they still get respect because their lies serve the status quo.
ETA: this was in response to ridski. My original post on this thread was not really responding to him in particular but he did respond to it.
I'd also add that while I think Binney is trustworthy, that doesn't mean he's always right.
I agree with this on all counts.
I don’t accept what I hear as the truth. I welcome a full investigation to get to the truth on what happened with Russia and the election. I can even see a time/circumstance when trying to improve relations with Russia could serve us well.
But none of the above has any bearing on Trump’s treasonous comments and embarrassment of a meeting with Putin this week. Regardless of what we find out to be the truth, the way he conducted himself and the things he said to a foreign leader about our country were abhorrent and eithervtreason or as close “as you can come without going over”.
nan said:
ridski said:Yes, it is important to see the motivation and you are right to ask this question. For example, when ex-CIA heads like John Brennan become a talking head at MSNBC, you should consider that what he's saying might be propaganda. However, when ex-CIA members form a group like VIPS, in direct response to CIA corruption you can expect they will be more trustworthy since that was the motivation:
terp said:I think that when someone says that the CIA and FBI and NSA are not benevolent entities and that they lie all the time, it’s apt to question why they think we should believe the statements of one group of former members of those organizations over the statements of others.
It is interesting that those who said the Intelligence community got us into an illegitimate war in Iraq that killed hundreds of thousands of people are now saying questioning them is treason.
"Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) is a group of former officers of the United States Intelligence Community. It was formed in January 2003 when the group issued a statement accusing the Bush Administration of misrepresenting U.S. national intelligence information in order to push the US and its allies toward that year's US-led invasion of Iraq. The group issued a letter stating that intelligence analysts were not being heeded by policy makers. The group initially numbered 25, mostly retired analysts.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veteran_Intelligence_Professionals_for_Sanit
Who are the current clients of PrettyGood Knowledge?
Nan's post says VIPS was formed because the Bush admin was "misrepresenting U.S. national intelligence information," not because the intelligence community was wrong.
terp said:
It is interesting that those who said the Intelligence community got us into an illegitimate war in Iraq that killed hundreds of thousands of people are now saying questioning them is treason.
The argument reminds me a little of this exchange from one of my favorite films called Withnail & I.
Marwood: Give me a Valium, I'm getting the FEAR!
Danny: [very calmly] You have done something to your brain. You have made it high. If I lay 10 mls of diazepam on you, it will do something else to your brain. You will make it low. Why trust one drug and not the other? That's politics, innit?
Marwood: I'm gonna eat some sugar.
[he goes to the kitchen]
Danny: I recommend you smoke some more grass.
Marwood: No way, no ******* way.
Danny: That is an unfortunate political decision. Reflecting these times.
Withnail: What are you talking about, Danny?
Danny: Politics, man. If you're hanging onto a rising balloon, you're presented with a difficult decision - let go before it's too late or hang on and keep getting higher, posing the question: how long can you keep a grip on the rope? They're selling hippie wigs in Woolworths, man. The greatest decade in the history of mankind is over. And as Presuming Ed here has so consistently pointed out, we have failed to paint it black.
ridski said:
Interestingly, I addressed that in my first lengthy response I realized would be mostly ignored or misunderstood
I remove all the umlauts from mine before posting. Not that it’s helped.
conandrob240 said:
I don’t accept what I hear as the truth. I welcome a full investigation to get to the truth on what happened with Russia and the election. I can even see a time/circumstance when trying to improve relations with Russia could serve us well.
But none of the above has any bearing on Trump’s treasonous comments and embarrassment of a meeting with Putin this week. Regardless of what we find out to be the truth, the way he conducted himself and the things he said to a foreign leader about our country were abhorrent and eithervtreason or as close “as you can come without going over”.
Yes, he's a buffoon, but we can't change that. Changing Trump or Putin are not happening at the moment so we can only hope for the best. And the time to get along with Russia is now. This should not be taken lightly. Nuclear war is worse than any stupid thing Trump says. I'm reposting the letter I mentioned above:
Common Ground: For Secure Elections and True National Security
An open letter by Gloria Steinem, Noam Chomsky, John Dean, Governor Bill Richardson, Walter Mosley, Michael Moore, Valerie Plame, and others.
https://www.thenation.com/article/common-ground-for-secure-elections-and-true-national-security/
excerpt: " . . . Many Americans remain deeply concerned about reports of Russian interference with the 2016 election. Meanwhile, relations between the United States and Russia are at their lowest and most dangerous point in several decades. For the sake of democracy at home and true national security, we must reach common ground to safeguard common interests—taking steps to protect the nation’s elections and to prevent war between the world’s two nuclear superpowers."
dave23 said:
Nan's post says VIPS was formed because the Bush admin was "misrepresenting U.S. national intelligence information," not because the intelligence community was wrong.
terp said:
It is interesting that those who said the Intelligence community got us into an illegitimate war in Iraq that killed hundreds of thousands of people are now saying questioning them is treason.
Do you need a list of the 81 countries where the CIA has interfered in elections and toppled democratically elected leaders and installed authoritarians who murdered and tortured civilians? This group is why we have terrorists and refugees in the first place. They are not nice and they should be nicer.
Can someone tell me how the relations between Russia and the U.S. are at their lowest point in decades, how we got there, and if they seriously think that there's some threat of nuclear war with Russia?
Cause I think that's all nonsense. Relations aren't great - largely because Russia is being kind of a dick lately. But it's not at some sort of crisis level.
Also, how can anyone seriously think that Trump meeting with ANY world leader could possibly be a good thing? He hates Democratically elected leaders, and loves the autocrats.
That's kind of a fundamental problem, in terms of forging an effective foreign policy.
I'll follow your digression to say that I'm familiar with all of that, thanks. Though I do have to disagree with your belief that terrorists and refugees didn't exist before the CIA. I think you are missing a few thousand years of human history there.
I don't think that confronting Russia on their misdeeds will inevitably lead to war. And I don't understand why you are so quick to let Putin's murderous and aggressive actions a pass.
dave23 said:
I'll follow your digression to say that I'm familiar with all of that, thanks. Though I do have to disagree with your belief that terrorists and refugees didn't exist before the CIA. I think you are missing a few thousand years of human history there.
I don't think that confronting Russia on their misdeeds will inevitably lead to war. And I don't understand why you are so quick to let Putin's murderous and aggressive actions a pass.
One of those acts rings prominently here:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-44868329
Our Foreign Minister has raised the issue with Putin several times, with less than helpful results. It would have been nice to have support from our ally - oh, wait, Trump hasn’t considered us worth appointing an ambassador yet.
dave23 said:
I'll follow your digression to say that I'm familiar with all of that, thanks. Though I do have to disagree with your belief that terrorists and refugees didn't exist before the CIA. I think you are missing a few thousand years of human history there.
I don't think that confronting Russia on their misdeeds will inevitably lead to war. And I don't understand why you are so quick to let Putin's murderous and aggressive actions a pass.
I'm focusing on our history specifically, not the history of human cruelty which of course goes back to the beginning. Of course confronting Russia might not lead to war. But, it also might lead to war. Nuclear war. I don't think we should be acting based on what Putin does in his country because we clearly don't give a crap about that since we are BFFs with Saudi Arabia who is worse. We are not big humanitarians. Also I don't think hacking the DNC (if he hacked the DNC) is a murderous action. The hacking of the DNC was a good thing because it let us know that our Democratic Party was really a corrupt non-Democratic institution. This is information we should know about and the source does not really matter.
drummerboy said:
Can someone tell me how the relations between Russia and the U.S. are at their lowest point in decades, how we got there, and if they seriously think that there's some threat of nuclear war with Russia?
Cause I think that's all nonsense. Relations aren't great - largely because Russia is being kind of a dick lately. But it's not at some sort of crisis level.
Also, how can anyone seriously think that Trump meeting with ANY world leader could possibly be a good thing? He hates Democratically elected leaders, and loves the autocrats.
That's kind of a fundamental problem, in terms of forging an effective foreign policy.
We have reinighted the cold war (around 2015) and we have two horrible people in charge, Trump and Putin. So, of course it's VERY DANGEROUS! We can't change that. Having them meet and make nice, even if it looks like a Rocky and Bullwinkle cartoon, is preferable to having them threaten each other from afar. Last March both countries were expelling lots of diplomats, over the alleged poisoning of an ex-spy in England. That poisoning had no evidence of being done by Russia but they were immediately blamed and condemned so tensions ramped up. Things can go downhill quickly over the smallest thing.
You should research the history. Here's a start:
The Rush to a New Cold War
https://consortiumnews.com/2018/03/30/the-rush-to-a-new-cold-war-2/
For Sale
Free Items
Sponsored Business
Promote your business here - Businesses get highlighted throughout the site and you can add a deal.
it's not you that's confused.