Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
The idea that anyone would take the CIA's PR reports at face value is stunning, and impossible for me to believe when the subject is Russia. When I look at my liberal facebook feed and the fact that leftists are all reposting this stuff, I see the public political spectrum as represented by two dogs with rabies fighting in a ring to the death while those with power look on. The universe is reduced to a rage-filled need kill the other half. There is no other awareness. This is what a complete and total propaganda victory looks like. The public has lost and will continue losing until we have an antidote to modern PR.

And look, if the truth is that Trump is compromised I would not be surprised but we have no way of knowing. This simly kicks back to the fact that power structures require transparency and accountability to avoid corruption and personal agendas.

you are the media you consume.

by MillMan (millguy at gmail) on Mon Feb 6th, 2017 at 08:16:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Wow.

This isn't a CIA PR report. This is the official,top secret briefing briefing of the Director of National Intelligence to both the President and the President elect, as reported on by credible, mainstream national media sources, going back to reports submitted since July, 2016.

While the details of evidence will of course always be unavailable to us for obvious, the suggestion that this is simply a partisan issue is simply ridiculous and a talking point of the only the far right. Let's please agree to be more rational on this.

by santiago on Mon Feb 6th, 2017 at 09:13:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Secret evidence is no evidence at all. The idea that anyone should fall for the spooks' appeal to authority is puzzling to me. Or that someone would consider them in any way or form can to be politically neutral entities.
I mean you know what would also explain being friendly towards Russia except being a Russian agent?  Seriously believing that conflict with China is inevitable. Sounds like anyone?
Because once you start from that assumption you really can't afford to push Russia into dependence of China no matter whether you like the balance of forces in Ukraine or not.
by generic on Mon Feb 6th, 2017 at 09:47:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]
It's PR because there is no evidence, and because someone leaked it to create a particular effect. It's interesting reading and the reasons for it being leaked are also interesting, and the reasons for the leak could be good or bad, but to me it's PR by definition when there is no direct evidence behind it.

My criticism of the public response across the political spectrum is that it is dictated by ideology, not by evidence. It's not a talking point.

you are the media you consume.

by MillMan (millguy at gmail) on Mon Feb 6th, 2017 at 10:21:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Nobody leaked it. It was originally covered in their regular, official press conferences, several weeks before the election, and Hillary Clinton used it in her debates against Trump, to mostly deaf ears at the time. All of the talk and accusations of leaks erupting from social media can be traced to the officially provided information at their regular press briefings.
by santiago on Tue Feb 7th, 2017 at 03:05:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Relying on defence (and financial) analysts is like listening to shamans, high priests telling the will of gods, predicting the next harvest.
by das monde on Tue Feb 7th, 2017 at 01:18:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]
That may be the case, but listening to spies' advice about whom may, in fact, be a foreign spy in the White House, seems much better than discarding such advice on that particular matter.
by santiago on Tue Feb 14th, 2017 at 09:49:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]
If they were talking about Israeli, Turkish, or Saudi spies, sure.

But they've found fifty of the last five Russian spies, so when they claim there's a Russian spy the appropriate response is a shrug and a snicker.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Wed Feb 15th, 2017 at 06:49:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Have they really?

How many fake Russian spies have actually ever been accused by US intelligence agencies. Even the Rosenbergs were eventually found in the declassified Kremlin archives to have been exactly the spies they were accused of being. I'm sure there must be some, but 50/5 seems like a gross exaggeration. And since accusing a presidential candidate, and now a sitting US head of state, of being such a spy, or a at least under the influence of, of Russia is so extraordinary, simply brushing it off to spy agency incompetence seems ridiculous.  At least sister- site Booman is taking it seriously.

by santiago on Thu Feb 16th, 2017 at 05:14:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]
How many fake Russian spies have actually ever been accused by US intelligence agencies.
Uh, every political leader in the third world between roughly 1950 and 1990 who wanted the local mining or banana company to pay tax has been accused of being either a Russian or Chinese infiltrator. Along with most of the anti Viet Nam war movement leadership, and more than a few inconvenient American newsies who committed journalism. And probably a Finnish president or two, though I don't have the references on hand for those.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Thu Feb 16th, 2017 at 10:27:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Top Diaries

Leave UK <dot> DT

by Oui - Dec 4
57 comments

It's Tory Austerity Stupid!

by Oui - Dec 9
16 comments

Occasional Series