patrick.net

My goodness, Russian outlets are becoming like American ones.

Yellowcake, Gulf of Tonkin, Babies in Incubators.

98% Chance of Hillary Win, Victim's Sister Calls for Peace, Hands Up Don't Shoot.

So, NYT, where is the evidence of chemical weapons AND who used them? Not experts working for interventionist think tanks who don't have access to the area or materials, whose opinion is from 1000s of miles away, that is repeated and amplified endlessly until the unconfirmed becomes confirmed with no evidence, but sheer repetition. Key Marketing technique.

Kind of like "How Russia Hacked The Elections". And if you watch Rachel Maddow, baseless allegations are just repeated endlessly until believed. Has anybody found a dollar going from Putin to Trump yet?

We do know for a fact two people "hacked" the Election : Wasserman-Schultz and Brazille flagrantly broke their trust as DNC Chairs and worked to choose their preferred nominee. The evidence was so overwhelming they resigned. We should talk about this more.

The NYT is the Establishment Paper of Record, and pretty much always has been. Just like the WaPo is the Deep State Paper of Record.

You give good examples of problems with the American media. You've done nothing to show an equivalence between US and Russian media. You complain that our media is owned by a few corporations. You never point out that Russian media is funded nearly totally by the government. It's not an independent media at all.

YesYNot says

You give good examples of problems with the American media. You've done nothing to show an equivalence between US and Russian media. You complain that our media is owned by a few corporations. You never point out that Russian media is funded nearly totally by the government. It's not an independent media at all.

http://www.carlbernstein.com/magazine_cia_and_media.php

And don't think for a minute it isn't ongoing.

More proof is the lock step in which most of the media marches. In a country of 350M, they take the same positions with stunning regularity. And most of what they disagree with is peripheral political mudslinging, not substance like foreign policy or economics.

Lashkar_i_Trumpi says

And don't think for a minute it isn't ongoing.

So the CIA uses news organization for cover and also to disseminate some news. That's not a big shocker. It's a far cry from the CIA running the whole newspaper.

YesYNot says

So the CIA uses news organization for cover and also to disseminate some news. That's not a big shocker. It's a far cry from the CIA running the whole newspaper.

Yes, I'm sure the CIA isn't doing much in the Sports or Travel Section. But we know for a time they DID interfere with the Arts, not just in the Press but via the direct sponsorship of "Artists"

Lashkar_i_Trumpi says

We do know for a fact two people "hacked" the Election : Wasserman-Schultz and Brazille flagrantly broke their trust as DNC Chairs and worked to choose their preferred nominee. The evidence was so overwhelming they resigned. We should talk about this more.

Yes. This is the only proven "hack" of the election, and it failed (ok it didn't fail. Bernie was robbed and that actually happened!) when it was exposed. It's interesting that the exposed fraud artists made much of the legality of the method that they were exposed, rather than admitting their sin. Attack attack, deny deny has always been the Clinton way.

Quigley says

Wasserman-Schultz and Brazille flagrantly broke their trust as DNC Chairs a

Ironically, it probably contributed to HRC losing the election. You can talk about it all you want. The full story is known, and the rule breakers were punished in some way. Wasserman-Schultz should have suffered more, perhaps. The Trump story hasn't been revealed, because no one has hacked into all of their computers and made it public.

The funny thing about Russian intervention in our election is that State run TV in Russia turned on Trump. They did a 180 after the election just as Trump has done a 180 on a lot of his positions.

YesYNot says

The funny thing about Russian intervention in our election is that State run TV in Russia turned on Trump. They did a 180 after the election just as Trump has done a 180 on a lot of his positions.

Our Biased Media stopped bashing Trump when he started bombing. Not quite a 180 but if he put troops on the ground, they'd love him.

Lashkar_i_Trumpi says

Our Biased Media stopped bashing Trump when he started bombing.

Yep. Most conventional wisdom is that he did the right thing. Part of that is the position of most people in the main stream prior to the attack. John Kerry and Clinton were advocating for ore intervention, for example. Conventional republicans also agree with that position. On top of that, people tend to band together and play for their team when some war is started. That's human nature. There's also a sick phenomenon, where war makes for good TV. For some reason, people want to watch it, and it's good for ratings. If you zoom out a bit, you will see alternative viewpoints being put forward in the US media. Do you see that in Russia?

I wasn't real happy with Trump's response, and wish that there were more investigations and a better argument was made to show that it was Assad. OTOH, the Russian media is just jumping to the other conclusion, because that is the official position of the mothership.

YesYNot says

I wasn't real happy with Trump's response, and wish that there were more investigations and a better argument was made to show that it was Assad. OTOH, the Russian media is just jumping to the other conclusion, because that is the official position of the mothership.

And American opinions are jumping to the bombing was great conclusion, because that is the official position of the Swamp.

All this is smoke and mirrors to obscure the TRUE power struggle in Syria. Ironically, it has little to nothing to do with the Syrians. Instead, their nation's unfortunate position at the nexus of two oil powers is their nemesis. Arabia and the gulf states want to build a pipeline to Europe. Russia wants no such pipeline, and will only accept one from Iran as they are allies in the cause of reigning in US financial hegemony. The Saudis are US allies in maintaining the hegemony of the New York bankers.
If Russia is allowed to keep its monopoly on servicing oil and gas to Europe, it will succeed in its split from under the thumb of the NY banker cartel, which has caused them much currency trouble and (through OPEC) falling oil prices that impact its ability to pay for its return to world power.

The US government doesn't want to see Russia return to power, preferring the weak state that it has been since the early 1990s.

Trump has clearly been advised of these deeper geopolitical issues, and is acting on behalf of the globalists and bankers to attempt to limit Russia's return to status as a major world power.

So he bombs Syria to make this point.

And now everyone knows that this new "maverick" POTUS has been incepted as far as world politics is concerned.

The mass media goes wild.

Lashkar_i_Trumpi says

And American opinions are jumping to the bombing was great conclusion

They usually do, because people are tribal. In a similar situation, Obama paid a huge political price for not bombing. What did you think Trump would do?

YesYNot says

So the CIA uses news organization for cover and also to disseminate some news. That's not a big shocker. It's a far cry from the CIA running the whole newspaper.

Good, now how do you know what's CIA BS and what is actual reporting?

Best bet: Watch diverse media, and especially what the MSM doesn't like.
YesYNot says

They usually do, because people are tribal. In a similar situation, Obama paid a huge political price for not bombing. What did you think Trump would do?

Obama supporters need to stop claiming he didn't bomb. Not only did he bomb in Syria, and Intervene in Libya, he's used drones countless times in more countries than Bush did.