Let's not forget there are state actors known to seek geopolitical advantage and domestic passivity from publishing disinformation in social media forums. I don't doubt there are rabid Trump...
I don't doubt there are rabid Trump supporters and conspiracy theorists domestically, but all sources should be subject to rational skepticism and double-checking right now - it's a rapidly evolving crisis, where even the most reliable sources and authorities can make mistakes.
Let them call it a hoax. They can eat humble pie once millions of Americans get sick due to the President's incompetent handling of the matter. Or they'll just go back to xenophobically blaming...
Let them call it a hoax. They can eat humble pie once millions of Americans get sick due to the President's incompetent handling of the matter. Or they'll just go back to xenophobically blaming their issues (this one included) on China, Muslims, Mexicans, the so-called "Deep State" that is apparently running the US despite no evidence whatsoever of their existence, or Russia as usual.
Your credibility diminishes in my mind when you claim there is no evidence of a ‘deep state’. One need only look to the drive to the Iraq war to see the heavy influence of self interested,...
Your credibility diminishes in my mind when you claim there is no evidence of a ‘deep state’.
One need only look to the drive to the Iraq war to see the heavy influence of self interested, politically unaccountable actors on the actions of government.
That said, these first responders are acting in a life threateningly vicious derogation of their duty, and that’s scary and sad.
Bush and appointees? I firmly believe that had Gore been elected, Iraq never would have happened.
Your credibility diminishes in my mind when you claim there is no evidence of a ‘deep state’.
One need only look to the drive to the Iraq war to see the heavy influence of self interested, politically unaccountable actors on the actions of government.
Bush and appointees? I firmly believe that had Gore been elected, Iraq never would have happened.
It's not hard to say. Bush appointees are the main reason the US was involved in Iraq. It wasn't the intelligence community that purported that Iraq obtained WMDs. It was the Bush Administration....
It's not hard to say. Bush appointees are the main reason the US was involved in Iraq.
The Committee’s report cites several conclusions in which the Administration’s public statements were NOT supported by the intelligence. They include:
Statements and implications by the President and Secretary of State suggesting that Iraq and al-Qa’ida had a partnership, or that Iraq had provided al-Qa’ida with weapons training, were not substantiated by the intelligence.
Statements by the President and the Vice President indicating that Saddam Hussein was prepared to give weapons of mass destruction to terrorist groups for attacks against the United States were contradicted by available intelligence information.
Statements by President Bush and Vice President Cheney regarding the postwar situation in Iraq, in terms of the political, security, and economic, did not reflect the concerns and uncertainties expressed in the intelligence products.
Statements by the President and Vice President prior to the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate regarding Iraq’s chemical weapons production capability and activities did not reflect the intelligence community’s uncertainties as to whether such production was ongoing.
The Secretary of Defense’s statement that the Iraqi government operated underground WMD facilities that were not vulnerable to conventional airstrikes because they were underground and deeply buried was not substantiated by available intelligence information.
The Intelligence Community did not confirm that Muhammad Atta met an Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague in 2001 as the Vice President repeatedly claimed.
I would argue that bush’s presidency was established through parapolitical maneuvering and possibly sabotage by non-elected actors whose goal was mideastern imperialism. They acted to strong arm...
I would argue that bush’s presidency was established through parapolitical maneuvering and possibly sabotage by non-elected actors whose goal was mideastern imperialism. They acted to strong arm congressional approval of their tactics. And the wider intelligence community may not have concurred, but certainly the political frontline of the provate intelligence community was really excited about making this happen. See pnac, see funky election results, bush v. Gore.
Well, the pnac at least is fairly out in the open. Read the manifesto. Bush v gore decision is also public knowledge, and hotly controversial. More on the Fl vote issues..
Well, the pnac at least is fairly out in the open. Read the manifesto. Bush v gore decision is also public knowledge, and hotly controversial.
Yes, I am aware of PNAC, and it's a big reason for my earlier statement that Bush and appointees (other PNAC members) are the reason the US was involved in Iraq. Those people would never have been...
Yes, I am aware of PNAC, and it's a big reason for my earlier statement that Bush and appointees (other PNAC members) are the reason the US was involved in Iraq. Those people would never have been involved in government had Bush not won, ergo the Iraq War never would have happened had Gore won.
This is not evidence of a 'deep state.' There is direct proof of an outside organization attempting to manipulate the government against the recommendations of agencies (NGA/CIA/DIA, the usual 'deep state'). If anything it's an argument that our institutions cannot save us from bad actors.
Well, part of our disagreement is semantic and/or dependent on how one defines deep state. I prefer the term parapolitical forces. And i suppose if you are persuaded that the 2000 presidential...
Well, part of our disagreement is semantic and/or dependent on how one defines deep state. I prefer the term parapolitical forces.
And i suppose if you are persuaded that the 2000 presidential election was not subject to shenanigans, the pnac is not evidence of the unelected elite running the government for their own, as opposed to the people’s, good ends.
Nevermind, of course, that many in The pnac were both government- and private-intelligence connected.
Let's not forget there are state actors known to seek geopolitical advantage and domestic passivity from publishing disinformation in social media forums.
I don't doubt there are rabid Trump supporters and conspiracy theorists domestically, but all sources should be subject to rational skepticism and double-checking right now - it's a rapidly evolving crisis, where even the most reliable sources and authorities can make mistakes.
Let them call it a hoax. They can eat humble pie once millions of Americans get sick due to the President's incompetent handling of the matter. Or they'll just go back to xenophobically blaming their issues (this one included) on China, Muslims, Mexicans, the so-called "Deep State" that is apparently running the US despite no evidence whatsoever of their existence, or Russia as usual.
Anybody calling SARS-CoV-2 a hoax doesn't grasp the concept of exponential growth. Here is a very good video on the subject.
They won't care until it affects them or someone they care about, that's how conservatives go about things.
Your credibility diminishes in my mind when you claim there is no evidence of a ‘deep state’.
One need only look to the drive to the Iraq war to see the heavy influence of self interested, politically unaccountable actors on the actions of government.
That said, these first responders are acting in a life threateningly vicious derogation of their duty, and that’s scary and sad.
Bush and appointees? I firmly believe that had Gore been elected, Iraq never would have happened.
Hard to say, but Obama’s actions in the region are telling.
It's not hard to say. Bush appointees are the main reason the US was involved in Iraq.
It wasn't the intelligence community that purported that Iraq obtained WMDs. It was the Bush Administration. The 2008 bipartisan senate report on pre-war Iraq intelligence showed that:
I would argue that bush’s presidency was established through parapolitical maneuvering and possibly sabotage by non-elected actors whose goal was mideastern imperialism. They acted to strong arm congressional approval of their tactics. And the wider intelligence community may not have concurred, but certainly the political frontline of the provate intelligence community was really excited about making this happen. See pnac, see funky election results, bush v. Gore.
Those are some bold assertions and I don't see any sources to back up those conclusions.
Well, the pnac at least is fairly out in the open. Read the manifesto. Bush v gore decision is also public knowledge, and hotly controversial.
More on the Fl vote issues..
Yes, I am aware of PNAC, and it's a big reason for my earlier statement that Bush and appointees (other PNAC members) are the reason the US was involved in Iraq. Those people would never have been involved in government had Bush not won, ergo the Iraq War never would have happened had Gore won.
This is not evidence of a 'deep state.' There is direct proof of an outside organization attempting to manipulate the government against the recommendations of agencies (NGA/CIA/DIA, the usual 'deep state'). If anything it's an argument that our institutions cannot save us from bad actors.
Well, part of our disagreement is semantic and/or dependent on how one defines deep state. I prefer the term parapolitical forces.
And i suppose if you are persuaded that the 2000 presidential election was not subject to shenanigans, the pnac is not evidence of the unelected elite running the government for their own, as opposed to the people’s, good ends.
Nevermind, of course, that many in The pnac were both government- and private-intelligence connected.