POTUS Vows Action Against Russia's Hacking

[GG]

 

WHATABOUTISMS! It's all GG's got. Run away from the issue and change the topic, it's all you got. Your spinelessness on this issue and your blind jingoism has become a joke.

 

A three hour, sustained bombing campaign in an area JSOC knew like the back of their hand which targeted a known Syrian/Russian FOB, followed immediately by an ISIS advance that retook territory they had lost a week before is deliberate and intentional. It wasn't an accident. It was designed to shred the cease fire, kill Syrians and Russians and to help a known US enemy retake territory.

 

If you don't think that's proof that the neocon wing are willing to risk war with Russia to push their backwards, outdated, and completely rejected agenda then you need to wake up.

 

Russian troops didn't "enter" Syria. They were invited. Unlike the foreign jihadists we funded, armed and trained (directly or through proxies) and sent streaming across the Syrian borders for years.

 

You're so incapable of being objective in this you should just stop.

 

(And it's hilariously neocon of you to say the US was trying to limit the carnage by violating a cease fire AND dropping bombs )

 

400,000 dead Syrians thank you for their support.

 

Jingoist enough?

[Deranged Rhino]

 

400,000 dead Syrians thank you for their support.

 

Jingoist enough?

 

You're not even trying anymore. Keep shifting the argument. It's the only thing you can do. I get it, I do. It's just lame and spineless.

 

The question you asked is what proof is there that the neocons are willing to risk war with Russia to push their agenda.

 

I provided a clear and explicit example and instead of discussing that, you change the subject because you know you're wrong.

 

The neocons want regime change in Moscow and aren't afraid to risk a shooting war to get it. You support their position because you believe that regime change is merely wishing better lives for people.

 

In other words, you're delusional.

[Ozymandius]

[Deranged Rhino]

 

By that standard, 1) Turkey is also itching to start a shooting war with Russia, since they actually hit a real Russian jet. 2) love your ongoing leap of logic that US isn't trying to limit more carnage in Syria but is provoking a war with Russia. How's this, (3) if Russia troops don't enter Syria in the first place, there's no fear of their troops getting caught in the cross fire.

 

Who are the neocon leaders calling for regime change, btw?

 

This was such a blindlingly stupid response, it deserves a second look:

 

1) I never said "itching" to start a war. I said the neocons are willing to risk a war to get regime change. Important difference of course, but details don't matter to you when you're trying to be dishonest.

 

2) What's the more absurd leap? The person who argues that a three hour bombing run, targeting Russian and Syrian troops, and designed to clear the way for ISIS to retake territory -- the same ISIS who beheads children for sport -- is an attempt to "limit the carnage in Syria"... or the person who says deliberately breaking a cease fire by bombing a sovereign nation can only have negative outcomes? Riiiiight.

 

3) This is my favorite bit because it exposes the dangers of your political philosophy and why it's been so roundly rejected by the American public in three straight presidential elections. According to you, Syria -- a sovereign state -- has no right to protect itself by asking its allies to support it, thus it's Russia's fault for getting in the way of our bombs. Or, in other words, the only nations that have a right to defend themselves are the ones whom we agree with politically.

 

That's horseshit.

[GG]

This was such a blindlingly stupid response, it deserves a second look:

 

1) I never said "itching" to start a war. I said the neocons are willing to risk a war to get regime change. Important difference of course, but details don't matter to you when you're trying to be dishonest.

 

2) What's the more absurd leap? The person who argues that a three hour bombing run, targeting Russian and Syrian troops, and designed to clear the way for ISIS to retake territory -- the same ISIS who beheads children for sport -- is an attempt to "limit the carnage in Syria"... or the person who says deliberately breaking a cease fire by bombing a sovereign nation can only have negative outcomes? Riiiiight.

 

3) This is my favorite bit because it exposes the dangers of your political philosophy and why it's been so roundly rejected by the American public in three straight presidential elections. According to you, Syria -- a sovereign state -- has no right to protect itself by asking its allies to support it, thus it's Russia's fault for getting in the way of our bombs. Or, in other words, the only nations that have a right to defend themselves are the ones whom we agree with politically.

 

That's horseshit.

 

You're right, you didn't say itching, you just implied it (like everything else) Who said this? "We know the neocon wing of CIA wants regime change in Moscow and aren't afraid to fight a war to get it "

 

Don't think you need to read too much into that statement to infer that you think that neocons are itching to start a war.

 

Syria as a nation has every right to protect itself, and western countries should also look out for their best interests and scrutinize Russia's motivations to be in that region. Russia rarely, if ever acts for humanitarian reasons, so why are they so quick to jump to Syria's defense? Oh yes, that's to make sure that ISIS keeps its stronghold in NE Syria/Iraq and that none of the foreign jihadists return to Dagestan and Chechnya.

 

But I know nuance and parallel thinking isn't a strongsuit of Pravda parrots.

[Keukasmallies]

 

 

What components has DT shown so far that you think are going to make the middle class better?

 

The very fact that he's going to be in the driver's seat shortly rather than Hill'ry. He is draining the swamp in terms of turning out the Washington insider mentality. Will there be problems, Oh Yeah, lots of them, but they'll be problems associated with changing the way things are done. Will all his campaign promises be addressed; no more so than his predecessor delivered Hope, Change and Transparency.

 

So, yeah, I'll hang with him and see what happens. I believe if you always do what you always did, you'll always get what you always got. That's no longer good enough in the 21st Century.

[Tiberius]

Wow, FBI agrees with CIA

 

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/fbi-russia-hacking-help-trump-232755

[PastaJoe]

Two intelligence sources say the FBI agrees with the CIA assessment that Russia interfered in the U.S. election, in part to help Donald Trump, clearing up any confusion and other reporting that the agencies weren't in sync.

 

The entire intelligence community, in fact, is now in alignment that the hacks were partly motivated to try and install Trump as president. The FBI and others continue to say that Russia didn't actually think that was going to happen.

 

An intelligence source also notes that a memo went out from CIA Director John Brennan to the agency's workforce Friday. Intelligence chiefs, including Brennan, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and FBI Director James Comey, met earlier this week, according to the memo, and, "There is strong consensus among us on the scope, nature and intent of Russian interference in our presidential election."

 

http://www.npr.org/2016/12/16/505890551/fbi-cia-agree-that-russia-was-trying-to-help-trump-win-the-election

[Deranged Rhino]

 

You're right, you didn't say itching, you just implied it (like everything else) Who said this? "We know the neocon wing of CIA wants regime change in Moscow and aren't afraid to fight a war to get it "

 

Don't think you need to read too much into that statement to infer that you think that neocons are itching to start a war.

 

More dishonesty. Shocking.

 

GG, you're a better poster than this. You're also smarter. But if you want to continue to put words in my mouth and argue opinions I never held, keep doing it. It's the only way your dangerous, backwards, and thoroughly rejected political philosophy holds any water.

 

But to me, it just makes you look scared. Spineless. An intellectual coward who's unable to argue their position so they invent a new one and try to argue against that invented position instead of doing any sort of self reflection. It's nonsense, of course, like your entire geopolitical world view:

 

GG's Gems:

 

"Regime change is just wishing for people to have better lives."

"Three hour bombing campaigns designed to kill Syrians and carve out a foothold for ISIS fighters is actually an attempt to stop the carnage in Syria."

"The US didn't risk a war by bombing a Russian/Syrian FOB -- it was the Russians' fault for being there in the first place."

 

Classics.

 

 

Syria as a nation has every right to protect itself, and western countries should also look out for their best interests and scrutinize Russia's motivations to be in that region. Russia rarely, if ever acts for humanitarian reasons, so why are they so quick to jump to Syria's defense? Oh yes, that's to make sure that ISIS keeps its stronghold in NE Syria/Iraq and that none of the foreign jihadists return to Dagestan and Chechnya.

 

But I know nuance and parallel thinking isn't a strongsuit of Pravda parrots.

 

Syria has every right to protect itself... so long as that doesn't mean asking its allies for support. Got it.

 

As for the bolded... I know staying on topic and having an honest discussion isn't the strong suit of neocon jingoists hell bent on slandering anyone who dares offer a different opinion -- but hey, that's the only bullet GG has left in the chamber. Keep trying it, maybe it'll work one day.

 

It's funny, for as much as you like to try to paint me as a Putin apologist (which is not only inaccurate and reeks of desperation -- but it's just an **** tactic to take with someone who has gone out his way to have a respectful conversation with you about controversial topics), you're the one following the Soviet propaganda playbook.

 

I think they call that irony.

 

It's been months now since I originally brought this topic up and for months you've done everything you can to avoid answering the question. While I don't expect you to answer, since you're clearly lacking in testicular fortitude, I'll try again anyway:

 

What were the desired/possible outcomes of the US decision to bomb Syrian troops during a cease fire other than helping ISIS retake a foothold they had lost, shredding the cease fire which was keeping Assad in power, and continuing the bloodshed in Syria?

 

And, an addition based on today's GG's nonsense: How is the decision to bomb a Syrian FOB shared by Russian soldiers during a cease fire anything other than proof of the neocon willingness to risk a shooting war with Russia to get the outcome they desire?

 

You can't say "it's the Russians fault for being there" because that's not only stupid, it's revisionist.

 

44 bungled Syria in every imaginable way and allowed the Russians to fill the vacuum our lack of leadership created. That happened. You can't change it and then try to answer the question.

 

Saying it's the Russian's fault, or trying to back into a ludicrous position that a sovereign nation cannot do whatever it wants to defend its interests within its own borders, isn't an answer. It's a dodge.

 

JSOC knew the realities of the political situation when the attack was ordered. They also knew the risks. They clearly thought there was something to gain from the operation... so what was it?

 

Were they actually planning on dropping the "wishing for better lives" bombs that don't detonate ordinance but rather explode in rainbows and unicorns for the Syrian people to enjoy and the ground crews fudged the order?

 

 

That must have been it. It makes so much sense now.

The entire intelligence community, in fact, is now in alignment that the hacks were partly motivated to try and install Trump as president. The FBI and others continue to say that Russia didn't actually think that was going to happen.

 

 

This is still not true. There are 17 intelligence agencies.

 

There is still a deep disagreement between many of those about this very issue. There are, in fact, deep disagreements within the FBI and CIA itself over this issue.

 

What is true is that the leadership of FBI and CIA are now trying to project an image of unity.

 

That's not the same as there being actual unity and agreement.

But it's a step in the right direction.

[GG]

No matter how many times you keep deflecting the topic, the posting history is there for all to see. My views have been consistent on Putin since well before you decided to grace this site.

 

Putin is an authoritarian despot who pines for the return of the Soviet Empire, which by extension means a victory over political and individual freedom and capitalism. Soviet Union has caused more deaths in the history of mankind than any other regime. Putin took advantage of a feckless US foreign policy to reassert itself in places where the Soviets were tossed out, under the pretense that they are welcomed back with open arms. And in the process, Putin also hampered US actions in Afghanistan, Iraq and the fight against ISIS.

 

Obama belatedly recognized Putin for what he is, and was left with very few good options. That's what you get when you gaze at the Nobel Peace Prize and the mirror for 7 years.

 

And no matter what Glenn Greenwald tells you, Putin's main mission in MidEast is to make sure that nobody, nobody returns from MidEast to Daghestan & Chechnya. So he's propping up a zombie Assad regime and building a safe heaven for ISIS. Why doesn't the Intercept report on the retaking of Palmyra by ISIS and Assad nor Russians doing anything to stop it? Could it be because, they're only interested in wiping out Aleppo? And what happens then? Do you think that the resistance to Assad is done?

[DC Tom]

 

This is still not true. There are 17 intelligence agencies.

 

There is still a deep disagreement between many of those about this very issue. There are, in fact, deep disagreements within the FBI and CIA itself over this issue.

 

What is true is that the leadership of FBI and CIA are now trying to project an image of unity.

 

That's not the same as there being actual unity and agreement.

But it's a step in the right direction.

 

The FBI is the organization I take most seriously in this case, as they're the ones actually responsible for cybercrime and counter-espionage.

 

The CIA can go blow itself in this case. They have no authority, responsibility, or capability for investigating this.

[grinreaper]

Two intelligence sources say the FBI agrees with the CIA assessment that Russia interfered in the U.S. election, in part to help Donald Trump, clearing up any confusion and other reporting that the agencies weren't in sync.

 

The entire intelligence community, in fact, is now in alignment that the hacks were partly motivated to try and install Trump as president. The FBI and others continue to say that Russia didn't actually think that was going to happen.

 

An intelligence source also notes that a memo went out from CIA Director John Brennan to the agency's workforce Friday. Intelligence chiefs, including Brennan, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and FBI Director James Comey, met earlier this week, according to the memo, and, "There is strong consensus among us on the scope, nature and intent of Russian interference in our presidential election."

 

http://www.npr.org/2016/12/16/505890551/fbi-cia-agree-that-russia-was-trying-to-help-trump-win-the-election

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/comey-fbi-russia-trump/2016/12/14/id/764008/

 

In telephone conversations with Donald Trump, FBI Director James Comey assured the president-elect there was no credible evidence that Russia influenced the outcome of the recent U.S. presidential election by hacking the Democratic National Committee and the emails of John Podesta, the chairman of Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign.

 

What’s more, Comey told Trump that James Clapper, the director of National Intelligence, agreed with this FBI assessment.

Edited December 16, 2016 by grinreaper

[Dorkington]

Newsmax vs NPR, which is more reliable?

[LA Grant]

It's amazing to me that a president was impeached over Watergate yet with a foreign rival doing what looks like the equivalent or worse, a majority of people are willing to just shrug it off and move on. I would think if the FBI and the CIA agree, to find a way to be dismissive of that is incredible, yet that's what is happening.

 

The argument that it didn't matter or wouldn't have changed the results seems to be what people keep saying, though I would think that would be irrelevant. The collusion itself is unprecedented.

 

How was Watergate worse than Russia interfering with the election in favor of Trump? Genuinely curious to hear that argument. It seems to me that Watergate wasn't a worse offense than Russian hacking, and that the result and evidence were just as clear in that as they are in this instance. The difference being that now the media is more splintered and people are just further into their own realities.

[B-Man]

Obama: We Handled Russian Hacking The Way It Should Have Been Handled.

 

What....................do nothing until you lose the election....................and then piss and moan.

 

 

Amazing................he's NEVER at fault.

 

Reminder:

 

The casual reader of newspaper headlines might well believe that the Russian government hacked into voting machines, or something of the sort, to influence the presidential election. But that is not the case.

 

 

If you read the Washington Post story (and NYTIMES) , they are merely talking about the well-known hacks of Democratic National Committee and John Podesta emails.

[grinreaper]

Newsmax vs NPR, which is more reliable?

Depends upon where you stand politically I guess. The dems are trying to harm and delegitimize Trump in any way they can. I do not put it past them to just make schit up for their own political reasons.

[Chef Jim]

It's amazing to me that a president was impeached over Watergate yet with a foreign rival doing what looks like the equivalent or worse, a majority of people are willing to just shrug it off and move on. I would think if the FBI and the CIA agree, to find a way to be dismissive of that is incredible, yet that's what is happening.

 

The argument that it didn't matter or wouldn't have changed the results seems to be what people keep saying, though I would think that would be irrelevant. The collusion itself is unprecedented.

 

How was Watergate worse than Russia interfering with the election in favor of Trump? Genuinely curious to hear that argument. It seems to me that Watergate wasn't a worse offense than Russian hacking, and that the result and evidence were just as clear in that as they are in this instance. The difference being that now the media is more splintered and people are just further into their own realities.

If there is proof Trump was in on a cover up you have something. If not you're comparing apples to hammers.

[Deranged Rhino]

No matter how many times you keep deflecting the topic, the posting history is there for all to see.

 

You're right, the posting history is there for everyone to see. And everyone will see you're still refusing to answer the clear and direct question I've been posing to you for months. Instead, you want to make up positions I don't hold and argue against those. Like I said earlier -- that's spineless. Worse than that, it's dishonest and spineless. Be better than that.

 

You asked today for proof that the neocons are willing to start a war with Russia to achieve their goals. The bombing of Syrian troops proves exactly that. You don't deny this, instead you try to change the subject.

 

There was no other reason for that attack to have occurred when it occurred other than to prolong the war because we didn't like the outcome.

 

That's not trying to limit the bloodshed, that's not trying to save lives on the ground -- that's being a spoiled brat when things didn't break your way and continuing the bloodletting. That's the lengths neocons were willing to go in Syria when they had their hands on the wheel -- risking a direct shooting war with Russia.

 

Pointing that out doesn't make me a Putin supporter. It makes me honest. Something you should try.

*****************************

And for clarity -- we agree on the below (lightly edited to remove the bits I don't fully agree on or are just flat untrue or irrelevant). Even though you are unable to see that... and it has exactly zero relevance to what I'm talking about.

 

 

Putin is an authoritarian despot ... Soviet Union has caused more deaths in the history of mankind than any other regime. Putin took advantage of a feckless US foreign policy to reassert itself in places where the Soviets were tossed out, under the pretense that they are welcomed back with open arms.

 

Obama belatedly recognized Putin for what he is, and was left with very few good options. That's what you get when you gaze at the Nobel Peace Prize and the mirror for 7 years.

 

(one of) Putin's (secondary) mission in MidEast is to make sure that nobody, nobody returns from MidEast to Daghestan & Chechnya. So he's propping up a zombie Assad regime

[Nanker]

It's amazing to me that a president was impeached over Watergate yet with a foreign rival doing what looks like the equivalent or worse, a majority of people are willing to just shrug it off and move on. I would think if the FBI and the CIA agree, to find a way to be dismissive of that is incredible, yet that's what is happening.

 

The argument that it didn't matter or wouldn't have changed the results seems to be what people keep saying, though I would think that would be irrelevant. The collusion itself is unprecedented.

 

How was Watergate worse than Russia interfering with the election in favor of Trump? Genuinely curious to hear that argument. It seems to me that Watergate wasn't a worse offense than Russian hacking, and that the result and evidence were just as clear in that as they are in this instance. The difference being that now the media is more splintered and people are just further into their own realities.

Nixon wasn't impeached.

Where's the proof? We're all anxious to hear what proof they have. Wikileaks who spread the emails say this isn't so.

[Tiberius]

If there is proof Trump was in on a cover up you have something. If not you're comparing apples to hammers.

There is proof enough to warrant an investigation. Trump sent one of his minions to Moscow to meet with Putin. This issue is so serious that fact needs to be explored.