I'm Feeling Generous

Gdjjr

Platinum Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2019
Messages
8,947
Reaction score
4,475
Points
965
Location
Texas
I want to see the Question Mark Avatar have to earn her keep, so, I'm putting this here-

This, boys and girls is why it's made to appear Trump lost

The Nobel Peace Prize

A Long-Forgotten CIA Document From WikiLeaks Sheds Critical Light on Today's U.S. Politics and Wars
The Agency knew that their best asset for selling their wars was Barack Obama -- the same reason so many in the security state were eager to get rid of Donald Trump.


But it was one WikiLeaks document that particularly caught my attention at first: a classified 2010 CIA “Red Cell Memorandum,” named after the highly secretive unit created by Bush/Cheney CIA Director George Tenet in the wake of the 9/11 attack.

What made this document so fascinating, so revealing, is the CIA’s discussion of how to manipulate public opinion to ensure it remains at least tolerant if not supportive of Endless War and, specifically, the vital role President Obama played for the CIA in packaging and selling U.S. wars around the world. In this classified analysis, one learns a great deal about how the “military industrial complex,” also known as the “Blob” or “Deep State,” reasons; how the Agency exploits humanitarian impulses to ensure continuation of its wars; and what the real function is of the U.S. President when it comes to foreign policy.

snip

The Agency concluded: its best and only asset for doing that was President Obama and his popularity in Western European cities.

snip


But none of this would have worked, in the CIA’s estimation, without having a President who could effectively use his popularity abroad to sell the war not as a barbaric act of endless aggression but as a humanitarian gesture that — like the President himself — was benevolent, noble, and kind. As a result of their positive views of Obama, the agency concluded, the French and Germans would not only “be receptive to [Obama’s] direct affirmation of their importance to the [Afghanistan] mission” — that would be the positive reinforcement — but would also be “sensitive to [his] direct expressions of disappointment in allies who do not help.”

In other words, Obama was like a kind but righteous father whose nobility you believed in even when it came to bombing villages and shooting up schoolyards, and whose moral disappointment (you’re not living up to your duties as an ally) you were eager to avoid. Polling data thus showed that when Europeans were reminded that Obama supported the war in Afghanistan, support increased significantly:

1606393920319.png


1606393951410.png



1606393971139.png
 

JackOfNoTrades

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2019
Messages
9,038
Reaction score
7,644
Points
1,940
Location
Granite State
Biden won because he got more votes in the states that swung the electoral victory for him. Trump lost.
I'm feeling (somewhat) generous as well so I'll simply say that you really need to get a life...or a hobby...or laid....whatever.

Eisenhower warned about the military industrial complex decades ago. Multinational corporations have been greasing politicians pockets to go to war for years.
In my opinion, the skew came after 9/11. Getting heavily involved in Afghanistan was a huge mistake and going to war in Iraq was a disaster. But that's been
the United States issue for decades, go in, blow stuff up, turn around to leave and realize you can't just walk away because if you do, you're going to leave the
country in ruins and create more issues than you came to solve. A hint here...this is where a strong, well funded, and effective United Nations could be of
value...if it's largest member would see fit to participate in it.
 

Penelope

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2014
Messages
49,721
Reaction score
7,712
Points
1,860
So tramp is the victim again:
For that exposure, the CIA relentlessly attacked Trump starting from before he was even elected, and for the same reason, Assange is sitting in a British prison on espionage charges from the U.S. Department of Justice. Few things infuriate U.S. foreign policy elites more than those who, unwittingly or otherwise, show the true face of the U.S. security state to the world.
and it was Obama's CIA.
 

Taz

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2014
Messages
21,534
Reaction score
1,556
Points
190
I want to see the Question Mark Avatar have to earn her keep, so, I'm putting this here-

This, boys and girls is why it's made to appear Trump lost

The Nobel Peace Prize

A Long-Forgotten CIA Document From WikiLeaks Sheds Critical Light on Today's U.S. Politics and Wars
The Agency knew that their best asset for selling their wars was Barack Obama -- the same reason so many in the security state were eager to get rid of Donald Trump.


But it was one WikiLeaks document that particularly caught my attention at first: a classified 2010 CIA “Red Cell Memorandum,” named after the highly secretive unit created by Bush/Cheney CIA Director George Tenet in the wake of the 9/11 attack.

What made this document so fascinating, so revealing, is the CIA’s discussion of how to manipulate public opinion to ensure it remains at least tolerant if not supportive of Endless War and, specifically, the vital role President Obama played for the CIA in packaging and selling U.S. wars around the world. In this classified analysis, one learns a great deal about how the “military industrial complex,” also known as the “Blob” or “Deep State,” reasons; how the Agency exploits humanitarian impulses to ensure continuation of its wars; and what the real function is of the U.S. President when it comes to foreign policy.

snip

The Agency concluded: its best and only asset for doing that was President Obama and his popularity in Western European cities.

snip


But none of this would have worked, in the CIA’s estimation, without having a President who could effectively use his popularity abroad to sell the war not as a barbaric act of endless aggression but as a humanitarian gesture that — like the President himself — was benevolent, noble, and kind. As a result of their positive views of Obama, the agency concluded, the French and Germans would not only “be receptive to [Obama’s] direct affirmation of their importance to the [Afghanistan] mission” — that would be the positive reinforcement — but would also be “sensitive to [his] direct expressions of disappointment in allies who do not help.”

In other words, Obama was like a kind but righteous father whose nobility you believed in even when it came to bombing villages and shooting up schoolyards, and whose moral disappointment (you’re not living up to your duties as an ally) you were eager to avoid. Polling data thus showed that when Europeans were reminded that Obama supported the war in Afghanistan, support increased significantly:

View attachment 421637

View attachment 421638


View attachment 421639
jep47fYmYw-2.png
 

gipper

Libertarian/Anarchist
Joined
Jan 8, 2011
Messages
39,618
Reaction score
11,353
Points
1,330
I want to see the Question Mark Avatar have to earn her keep, so, I'm putting this here-

This, boys and girls is why it's made to appear Trump lost

The Nobel Peace Prize

A Long-Forgotten CIA Document From WikiLeaks Sheds Critical Light on Today's U.S. Politics and Wars
The Agency knew that their best asset for selling their wars was Barack Obama -- the same reason so many in the security state were eager to get rid of Donald Trump.


But it was one WikiLeaks document that particularly caught my attention at first: a classified 2010 CIA “Red Cell Memorandum,” named after the highly secretive unit created by Bush/Cheney CIA Director George Tenet in the wake of the 9/11 attack.

What made this document so fascinating, so revealing, is the CIA’s discussion of how to manipulate public opinion to ensure it remains at least tolerant if not supportive of Endless War and, specifically, the vital role President Obama played for the CIA in packaging and selling U.S. wars around the world. In this classified analysis, one learns a great deal about how the “military industrial complex,” also known as the “Blob” or “Deep State,” reasons; how the Agency exploits humanitarian impulses to ensure continuation of its wars; and what the real function is of the U.S. President when it comes to foreign policy.

snip

The Agency concluded: its best and only asset for doing that was President Obama and his popularity in Western European cities.

snip


But none of this would have worked, in the CIA’s estimation, without having a President who could effectively use his popularity abroad to sell the war not as a barbaric act of endless aggression but as a humanitarian gesture that — like the President himself — was benevolent, noble, and kind. As a result of their positive views of Obama, the agency concluded, the French and Germans would not only “be receptive to [Obama’s] direct affirmation of their importance to the [Afghanistan] mission” — that would be the positive reinforcement — but would also be “sensitive to [his] direct expressions of disappointment in allies who do not help.”

In other words, Obama was like a kind but righteous father whose nobility you believed in even when it came to bombing villages and shooting up schoolyards, and whose moral disappointment (you’re not living up to your duties as an ally) you were eager to avoid. Polling data thus showed that when Europeans were reminded that Obama supported the war in Afghanistan, support increased significantly:

View attachment 421637

View attachment 421638


View attachment 421639
Great column by Greenwald, as usual. He is one of the best journalists we have. There are so few.

I hope he can continue to expose the powerful for the frauds and killers they are. I fear he will end up like Assange or worse.

His point about Ears is prescient. He was an awful warmongering potus, but the majority of the American public doesn’t know this and refuses to accept it, when it’s revealed to them. They have been duped to believe he’s a nice guy, just as the CIA had planned.
 

gipper

Libertarian/Anarchist
Joined
Jan 8, 2011
Messages
39,618
Reaction score
11,353
Points
1,330
Biden won because he got more votes in the states that swung the electoral victory for him. Trump lost.
I'm feeling (somewhat) generous as well so I'll simply say that you really need to get a life...or a hobby...or laid....whatever.

Eisenhower warned about the military industrial complex decades ago. Multinational corporations have been greasing politicians pockets to go to war for years.
In my opinion, the skew came after 9/11. Getting heavily involved in Afghanistan was a huge mistake and going to war in Iraq was a disaster. But that's been
the United States issue for decades, go in, blow stuff up, turn around to leave and realize you can't just walk away because if you do, you're going to leave the
country in ruins and create more issues than you came to solve. A hint here...this is where a strong, well funded, and effective United Nations could be of
value...if it's largest member would see fit to participate in it.
Expect lots of war under Joe. If there is another politician as completely controlled by the MIC as Joe is, I can’t find him. Can you?
 

gipper

Libertarian/Anarchist
Joined
Jan 8, 2011
Messages
39,618
Reaction score
11,353
Points
1,330
Biden won because he got more votes in the states that swung the electoral victory for him. Trump lost.
I'm feeling (somewhat) generous as well so I'll simply say that you really need to get a life...or a hobby...or laid....whatever.

Eisenhower warned about the military industrial complex decades ago. Multinational corporations have been greasing politicians pockets to go to war for years.
In my opinion, the skew came after 9/11. Getting heavily involved in Afghanistan was a huge mistake and going to war in Iraq was a disaster. But that's been
the United States issue for decades, go in, blow stuff up, turn around to leave and realize you can't just walk away because if you do, you're going to leave the
country in ruins and create more issues than you came to solve. A hint here...this is where a strong, well funded, and effective United Nations could be of
value...if it's largest member would see fit to participate in it.
So tramp is the victim again:
For that exposure, the CIA relentlessly attacked Trump starting from before he was even elected, and for the same reason, Assange is sitting in a British prison on espionage charges from the U.S. Department of Justice. Few things infuriate U.S. foreign policy elites more than those who, unwittingly or otherwise, show the true face of the U.S. security state to the world.
and it was Obama's CIA.
I want to see the Question Mark Avatar have to earn her keep, so, I'm putting this here-

This, boys and girls is why it's made to appear Trump lost

The Nobel Peace Prize

A Long-Forgotten CIA Document From WikiLeaks Sheds Critical Light on Today's U.S. Politics and Wars
The Agency knew that their best asset for selling their wars was Barack Obama -- the same reason so many in the security state were eager to get rid of Donald Trump.


But it was one WikiLeaks document that particularly caught my attention at first: a classified 2010 CIA “Red Cell Memorandum,” named after the highly secretive unit created by Bush/Cheney CIA Director George Tenet in the wake of the 9/11 attack.

What made this document so fascinating, so revealing, is the CIA’s discussion of how to manipulate public opinion to ensure it remains at least tolerant if not supportive of Endless War and, specifically, the vital role President Obama played for the CIA in packaging and selling U.S. wars around the world. In this classified analysis, one learns a great deal about how the “military industrial complex,” also known as the “Blob” or “Deep State,” reasons; how the Agency exploits humanitarian impulses to ensure continuation of its wars; and what the real function is of the U.S. President when it comes to foreign policy.

snip

The Agency concluded: its best and only asset for doing that was President Obama and his popularity in Western European cities.

snip


But none of this would have worked, in the CIA’s estimation, without having a President who could effectively use his popularity abroad to sell the war not as a barbaric act of endless aggression but as a humanitarian gesture that — like the President himself — was benevolent, noble, and kind. As a result of their positive views of Obama, the agency concluded, the French and Germans would not only “be receptive to [Obama’s] direct affirmation of their importance to the [Afghanistan] mission” — that would be the positive reinforcement — but would also be “sensitive to [his] direct expressions of disappointment in allies who do not help.”

In other words, Obama was like a kind but righteous father whose nobility you believed in even when it came to bombing villages and shooting up schoolyards, and whose moral disappointment (you’re not living up to your duties as an ally) you were eager to avoid. Polling data thus showed that when Europeans were reminded that Obama supported the war in Afghanistan, support increased significantly:

View attachment 421637

View attachment 421638


View attachment 421639
View attachment 421680
All of you D partisans missed the point of Greenwald’s column. No surprise.
 
OP
Gdjjr

Gdjjr

Platinum Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2019
Messages
8,947
Reaction score
4,475
Points
965
Location
Texas
All of you D partisans missed the point of Greenwald’s column.
It requires reading- they refuse to. None are so blind as he who refuses to see-
 
OP
Gdjjr

Gdjjr

Platinum Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2019
Messages
8,947
Reaction score
4,475
Points
965
Location
Texas
I want to see the Question Mark Avatar have to earn her keep, so, I'm putting this here-

This, boys and girls is why it's made to appear Trump lost

The Nobel Peace Prize

A Long-Forgotten CIA Document From WikiLeaks Sheds Critical Light on Today's U.S. Politics and Wars
The Agency knew that their best asset for selling their wars was Barack Obama -- the same reason so many in the security state were eager to get rid of Donald Trump.


But it was one WikiLeaks document that particularly caught my attention at first: a classified 2010 CIA “Red Cell Memorandum,” named after the highly secretive unit created by Bush/Cheney CIA Director George Tenet in the wake of the 9/11 attack.

What made this document so fascinating, so revealing, is the CIA’s discussion of how to manipulate public opinion to ensure it remains at least tolerant if not supportive of Endless War and, specifically, the vital role President Obama played for the CIA in packaging and selling U.S. wars around the world. In this classified analysis, one learns a great deal about how the “military industrial complex,” also known as the “Blob” or “Deep State,” reasons; how the Agency exploits humanitarian impulses to ensure continuation of its wars; and what the real function is of the U.S. President when it comes to foreign policy.

snip

The Agency concluded: its best and only asset for doing that was President Obama and his popularity in Western European cities.

snip


But none of this would have worked, in the CIA’s estimation, without having a President who could effectively use his popularity abroad to sell the war not as a barbaric act of endless aggression but as a humanitarian gesture that — like the President himself — was benevolent, noble, and kind. As a result of their positive views of Obama, the agency concluded, the French and Germans would not only “be receptive to [Obama’s] direct affirmation of their importance to the [Afghanistan] mission” — that would be the positive reinforcement — but would also be “sensitive to [his] direct expressions of disappointment in allies who do not help.”

In other words, Obama was like a kind but righteous father whose nobility you believed in even when it came to bombing villages and shooting up schoolyards, and whose moral disappointment (you’re not living up to your duties as an ally) you were eager to avoid. Polling data thus showed that when Europeans were reminded that Obama supported the war in Afghanistan, support increased significantly:

View attachment 421637

View attachment 421638


View attachment 421639
View attachment 421680
Wow- such intellect- I'm AMAZED at the eloquence, fucking idiot.
 

badger2

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2016
Messages
7,856
Reaction score
634
Points
140
A mistake in the argument is when religion is excluded. When the CIA goes to church, it’s certainly not to pray. We know, for instance, that certain D.A.R. (Daughters of the American Revolution) in Florida do surveillance for law enforcement agencies, keeping an eye on potential “subversives.” Clinton employees link to the CIA and Pentecostals in Michigan. So for the idea of perpetual war, Zizek reminds readers about how certain pathologies can mesh, and we get resonance with the CIA’s modus operandi via Zizek’s logic of equivalences:

’In order to specify these communities further, one is tempted to risk the reference to Freud himself — in his Crowd Psychology he provides two examples of crowd formation: the Church and the Army. Usually, one takes them as equivalent, without considering the difference between the two. What, however, if this difference (is[italics]) crucial, along the lines of Laclau’s opposition between the structure of differences and the antagonistic logic of equivalences? The Church is global: a structured Institution, an encompassing network of hierarchically differntiated positions, basically ecumenical, tolerant, prone to compromises, all-inclusive, dividing its spoils among its subgroups; while in the Army the emphasis is on antagonism, on Us versus Them, on egalitarian universalism (we are all ultimately equal when we are confronted with Them, the Enemy) so that the Army is ultimately exclusionary, prone to annihilate the other. Of course, this is a notational opposition: empirically, the line can well be blurred, and we often have a militant Church, or, on the contrary, an Army that functions as a Churchlike corporate social institution.’
(Zizek, The Fragile Absolute)
 

Tom Paine 1949

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 15, 2020
Messages
2,397
Reaction score
1,962
Points
1,908
I want to see the Question Mark Avatar have to earn her keep, so, I'm putting this here-

This, boys and girls is why it's made to appear Trump lost

The Nobel Peace Prize

A Long-Forgotten CIA Document From WikiLeaks Sheds Critical Light on Today's U.S. Politics and Wars
The Agency knew that their best asset for selling their wars was Barack Obama -- the same reason so many in the security state were eager to get rid of Donald Trump.


But it was one WikiLeaks document that particularly caught my attention at first: a classified 2010 CIA “Red Cell Memorandum,” named after the highly secretive unit created by Bush/Cheney CIA Director George Tenet in the wake of the 9/11 attack.

What made this document so fascinating, so revealing, is the CIA’s discussion of how to manipulate public opinion to ensure it remains at least tolerant if not supportive of Endless War and, specifically, the vital role President Obama played for the CIA in packaging and selling U.S. wars around the world. In this classified analysis, one learns a great deal about how the “military industrial complex,” also known as the “Blob” or “Deep State,” reasons; how the Agency exploits humanitarian impulses to ensure continuation of its wars; and what the real function is of the U.S. President when it comes to foreign policy.

snip

The Agency concluded: its best and only asset for doing that was President Obama and his popularity in Western European cities.

snip


But none of this would have worked, in the CIA’s estimation, without having a President who could effectively use his popularity abroad to sell the war not as a barbaric act of endless aggression but as a humanitarian gesture that — like the President himself — was benevolent, noble, and kind. As a result of their positive views of Obama, the agency concluded, the French and Germans would not only “be receptive to [Obama’s] direct affirmation of their importance to the [Afghanistan] mission” — that would be the positive reinforcement — but would also be “sensitive to [his] direct expressions of disappointment in allies who do not help.”

In other words, Obama was like a kind but righteous father whose nobility you believed in even when it came to bombing villages and shooting up schoolyards, and whose moral disappointment (you’re not living up to your duties as an ally) you were eager to avoid. Polling data thus showed that when Europeans were reminded that Obama supported the war in Afghanistan, support increased significantly:

View attachment 421637

View attachment 421638


View attachment 421639
Great column by Greenwald, as usual. He is one of the best journalists we have. There are so few.

I hope he can continue to expose the powerful for the frauds and killers they are. I fear he will end up like Assange or worse.

His point about Ears is prescient. He was an awful warmongering potus, but the majority of the American public doesn’t know this and refuses to accept it, when it’s revealed to them. They have been duped to believe he’s a nice guy, just as the CIA had planned.
I agree about Greenwald’s articles being excellent, and that Obama filled the CIA and ruling class’ felt need for refurbishing the U.S. image after the Bush Administration’s Iraq invasion and the financial crash. But that doesn’t tell the whole story. The Democrats old credentials as a party of the (white) working class has passed to the rightwing populists and the Know Nothing “American Party” of Trump. The Democrats in WWI and WWII were perfect governing party to lead popular opinion to support war. That was a task beyond the Republicans in those days. But this is clearly now beginning to change. With a more stable leader than the megalomaniacal incompetent conman Trump, the CIA would have happily embraced a right populist Republican. Trump was just too irrational. He never challenged the perquisites of Wall Street or the MIC.

Obama was not a “warmonger” per se, though he certainly was no lamb of peace. His effort to break the logjam in the Middle East proves he had a few positive aims.
 
OP
Gdjjr

Gdjjr

Platinum Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2019
Messages
8,947
Reaction score
4,475
Points
965
Location
Texas
With a more stable leader
Who? "We, the stinky tourist" are supposed to be the "leaders" of the Public SERVANTS-

Re present a tive- to do the bidding of another, bone head, words mean things-
But this is clearly now beginning to change
No, it isn't- Israel calls the shots and as long as there feckless Empty Suits, gathering in the District of Criminals, it will continue- and that will continue as long as there is a Central Bank financing foreign and domestic policy, including UNjust and UNconstituional wars in both places, to prop up the Petro Dollar with "official" Force-
 

badger2

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2016
Messages
7,856
Reaction score
634
Points
140
If the British did want to give Americans $0.50 on the dollar and they rebelled, then the financial is woven into the stick-and-carrot calvinist automatism of D.A.R. philosophy, (war is good for CIA coffers, too) when in ritual they quote Galatians 6:9 ‘Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up.’
 

gipper

Libertarian/Anarchist
Joined
Jan 8, 2011
Messages
39,618
Reaction score
11,353
Points
1,330
I want to see the Question Mark Avatar have to earn her keep, so, I'm putting this here-

This, boys and girls is why it's made to appear Trump lost

The Nobel Peace Prize

A Long-Forgotten CIA Document From WikiLeaks Sheds Critical Light on Today's U.S. Politics and Wars
The Agency knew that their best asset for selling their wars was Barack Obama -- the same reason so many in the security state were eager to get rid of Donald Trump.


But it was one WikiLeaks document that particularly caught my attention at first: a classified 2010 CIA “Red Cell Memorandum,” named after the highly secretive unit created by Bush/Cheney CIA Director George Tenet in the wake of the 9/11 attack.

What made this document so fascinating, so revealing, is the CIA’s discussion of how to manipulate public opinion to ensure it remains at least tolerant if not supportive of Endless War and, specifically, the vital role President Obama played for the CIA in packaging and selling U.S. wars around the world. In this classified analysis, one learns a great deal about how the “military industrial complex,” also known as the “Blob” or “Deep State,” reasons; how the Agency exploits humanitarian impulses to ensure continuation of its wars; and what the real function is of the U.S. President when it comes to foreign policy.

snip

The Agency concluded: its best and only asset for doing that was President Obama and his popularity in Western European cities.

snip


But none of this would have worked, in the CIA’s estimation, without having a President who could effectively use his popularity abroad to sell the war not as a barbaric act of endless aggression but as a humanitarian gesture that — like the President himself — was benevolent, noble, and kind. As a result of their positive views of Obama, the agency concluded, the French and Germans would not only “be receptive to [Obama’s] direct affirmation of their importance to the [Afghanistan] mission” — that would be the positive reinforcement — but would also be “sensitive to [his] direct expressions of disappointment in allies who do not help.”

In other words, Obama was like a kind but righteous father whose nobility you believed in even when it came to bombing villages and shooting up schoolyards, and whose moral disappointment (you’re not living up to your duties as an ally) you were eager to avoid. Polling data thus showed that when Europeans were reminded that Obama supported the war in Afghanistan, support increased significantly:

View attachment 421637

View attachment 421638


View attachment 421639
Great column by Greenwald, as usual. He is one of the best journalists we have. There are so few.

I hope he can continue to expose the powerful for the frauds and killers they are. I fear he will end up like Assange or worse.

His point about Ears is prescient. He was an awful warmongering potus, but the majority of the American public doesn’t know this and refuses to accept it, when it’s revealed to them. They have been duped to believe he’s a nice guy, just as the CIA had planned.
I agree about Greenwald’s articles being excellent, and that Obama filled the CIA and ruling class’ felt need for refurbishing the U.S. image after the Bush Administration’s Iraq invasion and the financial crash. But that doesn’t tell the whole story. The Democrats old credentials as a party of the (white) working class has passed to the rightwing populists and the Know Nothing “American Party” of Trump. The Democrats in WWI and WWII were perfect governing party to lead popular opinion to support war. That was a task beyond the Republicans in those days. But this is clearly now beginning to change. With a more stable leader than the megalomaniacal incompetent conman Trump, the CIA would have happily embraced a right populist Republican. Trump was just too irrational. He never challenged the perquisites of Wall Street or the MIC.

Obama was not a “warmonger” per se, though he certainly was no lamb of peace. His effort to break the logjam in the Middle East proves he had a few positive aims.
I don’t agree with some of that.

O was a terrible warmonger, if you believe a potus has control of the military. He took W’s two wars and made it seven. He dropped more bombs than W. If this doesn’t meet the definition of warmonger, what does? If he weren’t a nice soft spoken “clean” black man but a white R, he would forever be known as a warmonger like W.

In a just world, both W and O are languishing in solitary at Supermax.

As Greenwald’s article states, the MIC or Deep State hated Trump because he wasn’t afraid to criticize our nation’s constant warring. It wasn’t his incompetence, though he clearly was incompetent in a lot of areas. He is the first potus not to start a new war, in a long time. He does deserve some credit for this
 

JackOfNoTrades

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2019
Messages
9,038
Reaction score
7,644
Points
1,940
Location
Granite State
All of you D partisans missed the point of Greenwald’s column.
It requires reading- they refuse to. None are so blind as he who refuses to see-
I did read the article. Greenwald is just another full of shit right wing hack. Wanna know how I can tell?
The name Obama is mentioned 13 times. The name Bush is mentioned 2 times. The name Reagan...not at all.
Digging in the weeds for conspiracy theories. We already have Alex Jones for that.
Probably why they showed him the door at the Intercept.
 
OP
Gdjjr

Gdjjr

Platinum Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2019
Messages
8,947
Reaction score
4,475
Points
965
Location
Texas
I did read the article. Greenwald is just another full of shit right wing hack. Wanna know how I can tell?
The name Obama is mentioned 13 times. The name Bush is mentioned 2 times. The name Reagan...not at all.
Digging in the weeds for conspiracy theories. We already have Alex Jones for that.
Probably why they showed him the door at the Intercept.
You do an excellent job of attacking messengers- addressing the message you fail miserably- ever thought about that?

BTW, he founded the Intercept, idiot.
 

Tom Paine 1949

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 15, 2020
Messages
2,397
Reaction score
1,962
Points
1,908
I want to see the Question Mark Avatar have to earn her keep, so, I'm putting this here-

This, boys and girls is why it's made to appear Trump lost

The Nobel Peace Prize

A Long-Forgotten CIA Document From WikiLeaks Sheds Critical Light on Today's U.S. Politics and Wars
The Agency knew that their best asset for selling their wars was Barack Obama -- the same reason so many in the security state were eager to get rid of Donald Trump.


But it was one WikiLeaks document that particularly caught my attention at first: a classified 2010 CIA “Red Cell Memorandum,” named after the highly secretive unit created by Bush/Cheney CIA Director George Tenet in the wake of the 9/11 attack.

What made this document so fascinating, so revealing, is the CIA’s discussion of how to manipulate public opinion to ensure it remains at least tolerant if not supportive of Endless War and, specifically, the vital role President Obama played for the CIA in packaging and selling U.S. wars around the world. In this classified analysis, one learns a great deal about how the “military industrial complex,” also known as the “Blob” or “Deep State,” reasons; how the Agency exploits humanitarian impulses to ensure continuation of its wars; and what the real function is of the U.S. President when it comes to foreign policy.

snip

The Agency concluded: its best and only asset for doing that was President Obama and his popularity in Western European cities.

snip


But none of this would have worked, in the CIA’s estimation, without having a President who could effectively use his popularity abroad to sell the war not as a barbaric act of endless aggression but as a humanitarian gesture that — like the President himself — was benevolent, noble, and kind. As a result of their positive views of Obama, the agency concluded, the French and Germans would not only “be receptive to [Obama’s] direct affirmation of their importance to the [Afghanistan] mission” — that would be the positive reinforcement — but would also be “sensitive to [his] direct expressions of disappointment in allies who do not help.”

In other words, Obama was like a kind but righteous father whose nobility you believed in even when it came to bombing villages and shooting up schoolyards, and whose moral disappointment (you’re not living up to your duties as an ally) you were eager to avoid. Polling data thus showed that when Europeans were reminded that Obama supported the war in Afghanistan, support increased significantly:

View attachment 421637

View attachment 421638


View attachment 421639
Great column by Greenwald, as usual. He is one of the best journalists we have. There are so few.

I hope he can continue to expose the powerful for the frauds and killers they are. I fear he will end up like Assange or worse.

His point about Ears is prescient. He was an awful warmongering potus, but the majority of the American public doesn’t know this and refuses to accept it, when it’s revealed to them. They have been duped to believe he’s a nice guy, just as the CIA had planned.
I agree about Greenwald’s articles being excellent, and that Obama filled the CIA and ruling class’ felt need for refurbishing the U.S. image after the Bush Administration’s Iraq invasion and the financial crash. But that doesn’t tell the whole story. The Democrats old credentials as a party of the (white) working class has passed to the rightwing populists and the Know Nothing “American Party” of Trump. The Democrats in WWI and WWII were perfect governing party to lead popular opinion to support war. That was a task beyond the Republicans in those days. But this is clearly now beginning to change. With a more stable leader than the megalomaniacal incompetent conman Trump, the CIA would have happily embraced a right populist Republican. Trump was just too irrational. He never challenged the perquisites of Wall Street or the MIC.

Obama was not a “warmonger” per se, though he certainly was no lamb of peace. His effort to break the logjam in the Middle East proves he had a few positive aims.
I don’t agree with some of that.

O was a terrible warmonger, if you believe a potus has control of the military. He took W’s two wars and made it seven. He dropped more bombs than W. If this doesn’t meet the definition of warmonger, what does? If he weren’t a nice soft spoken “clean” black man but a white R, he would forever be known as a warmonger like W.

In a just world, both W and O are languishing in solitary at Supermax.

As Greenwald’s article states, the MIC or Deep State hated Trump because he wasn’t afraid to criticize our nation’s constant warring. It wasn’t his incompetence, though he clearly was incompetent in a lot of areas. He is the first potus not to start a new war, in a long time. He does deserve some credit for this
Well, I didn’t support Hillary in 2016 because, compared to what Trump said at the time, and my estimate of the situation in large areas of Syria where Hillary was talking about establishing a U.S.-imposed “no fly zone” against the Russians, there was little question in my mind she was at that time the more dangerous candidate. So there is that.

But Obama did not capitulate to CIA false flag propaganda tricks or MIC & Republican & Zionist pressure to invade Syria when fake “ red lines” were crossed. One has to be able to see shades of grey here. One cannot say Obama inherited two wars and made them seven, as if all these wars were equal to the invasion and occupation of Iraq!

By 2011 the U.S. troops were officially out of Iraq, but the rise of ISIS by 2014-15 (a different and far more serious danger that grew up as a result of the original 2003 war and occupation) required a new policy which actually saw U.S. special forces and planes fighting essentially on the same side as Iraqi Shia militia armed by Iran and Kurds and Iraqi government soldiers. This was not the same as the original invasion, and carried along with the JCPOA and similar measures, along with an end to sanctions on Syria and Iran, might have had very positive results for the region, with a rebalancing of our policy and permitting a large withdrawal of our forces.

Of course the Obama camp was never free from powerful warmongering elements and Trump soon scuttled any hope of improvements. By the way, I never loved or expected much from Obama, and did not vote for him in 2012.
 
Last edited:
OP
Gdjjr

Gdjjr

Platinum Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2019
Messages
8,947
Reaction score
4,475
Points
965
Location
Texas
By 2011 the U.S. troops were officially out of Iraq,
Except "officials" lie, constantly and skew numbers at will- Obama is as guilty as any- the degree of guilt might be argued, but, dead people can't argue- "officials" can and do, constantly
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top