January 19, 2017
"The DNC Emails Were Leaked" Obama Takes Parting Shot At Brennan, Clapper, Clinton
Three U.S. Intelligence Agencies (CIA, NSA and FBI) claim that IT-Systems of the Democratic National Committee were "hacked" in an operation related to the Russian government. They assert that emails copied during the "hack" were transferred by Russian government related hackers to Wikileaks which then published them.
President Obama disagrees. He says those emails were "leaked".
Wikileaks had insisted that the emails it published came from an insider source not from any government. The DNC emails proved that the supposedly neutral Democratic Party committee had manipulated the primary presidential elections in favor of the later candidate Hillary Clinton. This made it impossible for the alternative candidate Bernie Sanders to win the nomination. Hillory Clinton, who had extremely high unfavorable ratings, lost the final elections.
The President of the United States disagrees with those Intelligence Services. He says that the DNC emails were "leaked", i.e. copied by an insider, and then transferred to Wikileaks. (At the time around the leaking the DNC IT-administrator Seth Rich was found murdered for no apparent reason in the streets of Washington DC. The murder case was never solved.)
Here is President Obama in his final press conference yesterday (vid @8:31):
First of all, I haven't commented on WikiLeaks, generally. The conclusions of the intelligence community with respect to the Russian hacking were not conclusive as to whether Wikileaks was witting or not in being the conduit through which we heard about the DNC emails that were leaked.
The DNC emails "that were leaked" - not "hacked" or "stolen" but "leaked".
One wonders if this is a parting shot is primarily aimed at the involved Intelligence Agencies led by James Clapper and John Brennan. Or is dissing Hillary Clinton and her narrative the main purpose?
The presidential judgement could change the political pressure towards a new cold war with Russia if the mainstream media would pick it up and discuss it. But the media are widely invested in the "hacking" claims (and even create their own ones from hot air). They are also furthering the anti-Russian narrative. We therefore can not expect that they will report this presidential parting shot at all.
h/t - Shuaib M. Almosawa
Posted by b on January 19, 2017 at 03:32 AM | Permalink
Obama simply doesnt know difference between Hacking/Leaking. He use both words for the same purpose. End of story I assume.
Posted by: Anonymous | Jan 19, 2017 3:37:20 AM | 1
*** META ***
- There are clearly organized attempts to promote other blogs here by dropping OFF-TOPIC or IRRELEVANT links to them any time they put up a new post.
- The sides promoted like this -knowingly or not- include The Saker, Duran, South Front, Syrian Perspective, ...
- Those clearly doing such promotions outside of relevant comments will be banned.
- Those sides have at times good content. On-topic, relevant links to them within well thought out comments are welcome.
- All comments with links to those sides will for now go into moderation and will be posted (or deleted) only after I reviewed them (usually in less then 24 hours).
- Don't repost a comment that does not immediately show up. It is likely held in the moderation/spam queue. Reposting only increases the chance that your original comment (and all its copies) will be deleted by this disgruntled moderator.
*** END_META ***
Posted by: b | Jan 19, 2017 4:20:09 AM | 2
Have you had an opportunity to check your AOL mail ? Kind regards.
Posted by: Outraged | Jan 19, 2017 4:25:32 AM | 3
In this context, Obama means "leaked to the public" otherwise his statement doesn't make sense.
Posted by: Joanne Leon | Jan 19, 2017 4:43:13 AM | 4
Awaiting trumps twitt re obamas leak statement. The donsls should jump on this.
Posted by: Giap | Jan 19, 2017 5:36:10 AM | 5
Speaking of Russophobia, this latest expose by John Helmer of Canada's Ukrainian ultranationalist Minister of Global Affairs, Chrystia Freeland. After this, maybe not for very much longer...
Victim or Aggressor - Chrystia Freeland's Family Record For Nazi War Profiteering, and Murder of the Cracow Jews
Posted by: John Gilberts | Jan 19, 2017 5:42:29 AM | 6
@ myself, #4:
On the other hand, it was a strange way for Obama to say it. If he did not mean "leaked to the public" then it seems that he was deliberately trying to confuse the situation.
He sets up the whole statement as "with respect to the Russian hacking" so the "Russian hacking" is a foregone conclusion from his point of view and past statements, right?
But the thing that has always been left unanswered, where no evidence has been offered, as far as I know, is on how the Russians gave or "leaked" the material to Wikileaks. Assange said his source was not a state actor. Obama now opens up the question as to whether the person who gave the emails to Wikileaks was the original source or whether it was a go-between.
McClatchy published a story yesterday saying that a pension system: "may have been used to pay some email hackers in the United States or to supply money to intermediaries who would then pay the hackers, the two sources said."
In the same McClatchy article they say this:
"U.S. intelligence agencies not only have been unanimous in blaming Russia for the hacking of Democrats’ computers but also have concluded that the leaking and dissemination of thousands of emails of top Democrats, some of which caused headaches for the Clinton campaign, were done to help Trump win."
So they use the word "leaking" to mean how the emails got to the public, leaking through Wikileaks, not in reference to how the emails were obtained from the server.
But it's very careless wording by Obama (and McClatchy) when you consider that claims have been made that the emails given to Wikileaks were obtained from an insider who "leaked" them. Maybe it is deliberately careless wording. who knows?
Personally I think the issue of who hacked into the DNC server is much less important than the issue of who gave the files to Wikileaks. I think it is likely that multiple parties hacked into that DNC server plus at least 1 and probably more people had legal access to it as administrators. So for all we know, multiple parties had email files (or every damn byte from that whole server and/or its backups, etc.) But who passed it forward to Wikileaks and how? That is the key detail that hardly gets mentioned in all the hacking stories.
So again, that was very careless wording by Obama and McClatchy. Or maybe it was deliberately careless/confusing wording. A tech person would have been more careful with the wording if they intended to clarify the situation.
In Obama's case, he's not a tech person but he is a lawyer. I watched that press conference. He was speaking slowly and deliberately, sometimes with long pauses between statements. So maybe you are right, b. Maybe he slipped that word "leaked" in there deliberately to disown his intelligence community's mess. They have become a discredited laughing stock to a lot of people who are well informed. A lot of other people don't know what to think because so few people understand the technology or took the time to plow through the details. But even among people who can't judge for themselves, many have read/heard from enough experts who cast doubt and ridicule on the reports and explanations from the intelligence community.
After his disastrous regime change ops in Libya, Obama blamed it on everybody else via interviews with Jeffrey Goldberg and his "Obama Doctrine" article. But he made it really clear that he was throwing them under the bus when he did it. Maybe he is doing the same kind of thing with his disastrous Russian hacking mess now. But if so, he hasn't made it very clear yet.
Posted by: Joanne Leon | Jan 19, 2017 5:44:58 AM | 7
Mebbe Obama discovered Ben Swann on CBS. (I'm not gonna give the link in view of the Meta :)
Posted by: Stubbs | Jan 19, 2017 5:51:44 AM | 8
obama's trying to reverse his record and burnish his legacy. he's done at the white house now. it's under the bus with all those who put him and kept him there over the past eight years.
perfectly in character. he's charted and sailed a straight, crooked course over the past eight years and he's going out in the same style with which he came in.
Posted by: jfl | Jan 19, 2017 6:06:01 AM | 9
@ Posted by: John Gilberts | Jan 19, 2017 5:42:29 AM | 6
Forgotten History and deeply laid, long dormant eggs, subsequently hatched, nurtured & matured(rehabilitated(?)) over generations, and came, and continue to come, home to roost ... :(
The patronage and purposely sponsored rat lines, primary via the Dulles brothers thru the early OSS/CIA & United States Counter Intelligence Corps (CIC, an army intelligence service, WWII era), that enabled Nazis, War Criminals, Nazi collaborators, as well as Imperial Japanese War Criminals, and the likes of OUN, to be placed in positions of authority and influence and develop their networks through subsequent generations, to rise into positions as Agents-Of-Influence(AOI) are myriad, and well documented ... throughout the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the UK and even Germany (Justice/Law & Intelligence services), immediately prior to the end of and subsequent to WWII, re both Europe & Japan ... a very tiny snapshot of examples ... Forgotten & thoroughly whitewashed history :
NASA's - Wernher_von_Braun & Slave labor
Reinhard_Gehlen & BND Federal Intelligence Service
Kurt_Blome & Postwar activities and employment by the United States
Imperial Japanese Army - Unit 731 & American grant of immunity
and so on ... :(
Posted by: Outraged | Jan 19, 2017 6:14:10 AM | 10
as far as the running the gauntlet with links here is concerned ... just putting the 'exact title of the article you want to link' in quotes, or using '<i>...</i>' tags for italic or '<em>...</em>' for emphasized tags to bracket the title-text, to indicate that it is an exact title, will do 99% of the time. just as dns servers render domain names to ip address numbers, so too do search engines render text strings to urls. no need to run the gauntlet.
it always pays to have a copy of your post in a text editor before you push the post button.
Posted by: jfl | Jan 19, 2017 6:24:40 AM | 11
Stubbs | Jan 19, 2017 5:51:44 AM | 8
Who is Mebbe Obama?
Or are you trying to demonstrate your chops as a stupid internet hack poseur?
Posted by: Ghostship | Jan 19, 2017 6:25:49 AM | 12
Just as President 'Ike' famously warned of the imminent rise and danger of the Military-Industrial-Congressional-Complex(MICC) in his farewell speech as President Dwight D. Eisenhower on January 17, 1961, Obama (The Death-Droning King), parses the same, though much less clearly and takes a trivial, meager, backhand swipe at the MICC ... to partially assuage his microscopic conscience ?
The president prior to Eisenhower, Harry Truman, had his explicit Executive Orders ... willfully, covertly, deliberately, circumvented ... and little has changed since circa 1945 ...
The money quote from OP Paperclip:
Operation Paperclip was conducted by Joint Intelligence Objectives Agency (JIOA). The JIOA's recruitment of German scientists began after the Allied victory in Europe on May 8, 1945, but U.S. President Harry Truman did not formally order the execution of Operation Paperclip until August 1945. Truman's order expressly excluded anyone found "to have been a member of the Nazi Party, and more than a nominal participant in its activities, or an active supporter of Nazi militarism." However, those restrictions would have rendered ineligible most of the leading scientists whom the JIOA had identified for recruitment, among them rocket scientists Wernher von Braun, Kurt H. Debus, and Arthur Rudolph, as well as physician Hubertus Strughold, each earlier classified as a "menace to the security of the Allied Forces."
The JIOA worked independently to circumvent President Truman's anti-Nazi order and the Allied Potsdam and Yalta agreements, creating false employment and political biographies for the scientists. The JIOA also expunged the scientists' Nazi Party memberships and regime affiliations from the public record. Once "bleached," of their Nazism, the scientists were granted security clearances by the U.S. government to work in the United States. The project's operational name of Paperclip was derived from the paperclips used to attach the scientists' new political personae to their "US Government Scientist" JIOA personnel files.
Turn the page & Move on. Look forward, not back. And, forget, forget, forget ...
Posted by: Outraged | Jan 19, 2017 6:55:35 AM | 13
I'm not careful about my word choices in conversation, Obama is. People here, for better or for worse, do not think much of the man, but his rhetorical skills should put the burden on the argument that he mistakenly used "leak."
Posted by: IhaveLittleToAdd | Jan 19, 2017 7:40:34 AM | 15
The US Gangster State continues as normal. The FBI have forced (sorry 'requested') the Spanish police to arrest Stanislav Lisov, a Russian programmer, whilst he was on holiday in Spain. He is supposedly involved in the (non-existent) hacking of the US election.
Posted by: Yonatan | Jan 19, 2017 8:30:41 AM | 16
FYI: An interesting article about the forthcoming inauguration. It covers the actions of an 'activist' outfit 'disruptj20.org'. The website was created before the election results were known. There are ads offering appreciable sums of money to protest against Trump. The article refers to job positions being offered at a $2500/month retainer plus $50/hour when active as long as the individual participates in at least 6 events a year. There appears to be an inevitable link to George Soros. The article notes that similar events in Belgrade, Tbilisi, Kiev and elsewhere have been used to trigger 'color 'revolutions'.
Posted by: Yonatan | Jan 19, 2017 8:42:14 AM | 17
In popular media, you can see the phrase "life hack." It is just wrong to assume everyone uses "hack" in the IT jargon way. At this point, it seems to me what people need to provide evidence for is the implication it made any noticeable difference. When it comes to security agency interference, it seems to me the ones that might have made a difference are the FBI's announcements about the email server. And the way the CIA let Clinton take the fall with an unbelievable cover story, instead of privately informing editors Benghazi was a falling out with al-Qaeda over gunrunning. Of course, in one sense, it's totally fair for the Democrats to cry treason, since the Republicans have been doing that over Benghazi and Clinton Foundation for a year or two.
And, once again, Trump did not win the election, he just won the Electoral College.
Posted by: s | Jan 19, 2017 8:50:20 AM | 18
I think Joanne  and  has a much better take/understanding of Obama’s comments.
First, Obama was not speaking through a teleprompter; i.e., using a script that was carefully written and vetted. This was all off the cuff.
Second, with the ever morphing-lexicon of expanding tech, the meanings of words like “hacked” and “leaked” are volatile and the distinctions between them can be vague, even to techies.
Third, even in the small excerpt of Obama’s comment provided, Obama clearly distinguishes what he claims Ru did [hacked] from what WikiLeaks did [leak].
Regardless of who was ultimately responsible for getting the DNC/JPod emails, and regardless of whether they were obtained by a hack from the outside or a leak from the inside, the information was put in the public domain by a leak from WikiLeaks . . . as in Wiki...Leaks. That’s all Obama was talking about when he used the clause: “emails that were leaked.”
Misinterpreting the presser comments = mountain outa’ mole-hill, IMO. Expanding the mountain to an entire mountain range by speculation about Obama bitch-slapping Clapper/Brennan presents a fun idea that is waaaay out there. I’ll wait for DTDuck to bitch-slap them – and that will be without any confusion about the distinctions between “hack” and “leak.”
Posted by: Denis | Jan 19, 2017 8:51:02 AM | 19
Once hacked, the information is leaked to or via Wikileaks. I think that is what Obama meant. The pair (hacked->leaked) is used elsewhere to express much the same sequence. So I don't think Obama is making any parting shot.
Of course that is really the most important question of all, isn't it? Were they internally leaked or hacked by Russia in the first place? The next duhh question, is why would we feel Russian Hacking revealing the Truth (of all things) would threaten our Democracy? But be that as it may, no one even remotely main stream is touching it for now.
Counterpunch has some excellent articles on total lack of hard evidence of R Hacking. In general, it remains perfectly possible that Russia DID hack the emails, but also that not one of the intelligence agencies have offered any hard evidence to support that claim at all. Given the overall performance of these agencies on weapons of mass destruction and other events, the public has EVERY right, if not duty, to be skeptical.
Posted by: Brooklin Bridge | Jan 19, 2017 9:29:13 AM | 20
Oops. Context! Not conclusive that wikileaks was witting. Obama did not say they were inconclusive on Russian involvement. Very odd way to put that. Of course wikileaks played a direct role.
Posted by: Curtis | Jan 19, 2017 9:34:03 AM | 22
i think the introduction of the word 'leaked' in the discredited context of 'hacked' is an attempt to rejuvenate the whole ridiculous parade, and to march it around the block a couple/four more times. new! improved! now with leaks!
it's a waste of time following these tnc msm minidramas.
Posted by: jfl | Jan 19, 2017 9:40:27 AM | 23
Further to, Posted by: Brooklin Bridge | Jan 19, 2017 9:29:13 AM @ 20
In 1989, just prior to the completely un-predicted, absolute surprise and stunningly sudden, virtually immediate, collapse of the Soviet Union(USSR), the Fiscal Year 1989 budget had been allocated ~$28 Billion USD, inclusive of the National Intelligence Program (NIP) & the Department of Defense's Military Intelligence Program (MIP).
~$28 Billion USD.
And not one word had been proffered or documented by the combined National Intelligence Agencies having assessed or indicated in any way whatsoever, the likelihood or even faintest possibility of such an event ... quite the opposite in fact.
Money well spent then, and money well spent today, now being just & solely for the NIP & MIP combined, a cool $70.3 Billion USD for Fiscal Year 2017 ... NOT!
Posted by: Outraged | Jan 19, 2017 9:57:47 AM | 24
NO PARDON FOR YOU Ms. Clinton.
This is what I take this to mean.
If so - Good.
Do your worst/best Mr. Trump and take the Clinton Crime Cabal Down.
Posted by: Jules | Jan 19, 2017 10:04:55 AM | 25
The whole discourse about ‘hacked’ and ‘leaked’ is completely confused. ‘Hacked’ data is so widespread - citizens have all the information ‘hacked’ thru semi-legal means for ex - I’m pretty sure Russia has (i.e. hacked) the Killary in-my-secret-dungeon server - etc. 'Leak' implies something different, or perhaps extra, i.e. transmitting info to some other party, or to the public, etc. by an ‘insider’, or someone who had some kind of ‘in’ or ‘authorised access’, or who managed to obtain such, implying some kind of ‘spy’ activity which could be ‘illegal.’ Which would seem to mean, there was some kind of aim behind the 'leak', it was perpetrated for purposes of having some kind of ‘effect’ - that seems to be what Obama is pointing to?
O, transcript from WH, repeat...: The conclusions of the intelligence community with respect to the Russian hacking were not conclusive as to whether WikiLeaks was witting or not in being the conduit through which we heard about the DNC emails that were leaked.
This sentence makes no sense at all. How could WL not be “witting” about being “a conduit”? That is their very function, which they proclaim. He uses “leaked”, see above.
Maybe a parting shot, maybe a slip of the tongue, or just confused vocab?
Posted by: Noirette | Jan 19, 2017 10:17:41 AM | 26
Denis @ 19 says:
I’ll wait for DTDuck to bitch-slap them – and that will be without any confusion about the distinctions between “hack” and “leak.”
this really is the crux of the matter, but, of course, bitch-slap will have to manifest itself as clapped in irons and prosecuted for high treason.
i ain't holding my breath.
Posted by: john | Jan 19, 2017 10:22:44 AM | 27
i'll be interested to see if this comment sneaks through ...
"There are clearly organized attempts to promote other blogs here by
dropping OFF-TOPIC or IRRELEVANT links to them any time they put up a new post"
Does sound like a dose of paranoia?
May be justified ... may not be.
We shall see.
Posted by: rg the lg | Jan 19, 2017 10:24:07 AM | 28
From the language of the remark, and in its context--"The conclusions of the intelligence community with respect to the Russian hacking were not conclusive as to whether Wikileaks was witting or not in being the conduit through which we heard about the DNC emails that were leaked"--it appears that Obama knows the difference and differentiates clearly between hacking and leaking, and that "emails that were leaked" refers back to Wikileaks, not the Russians--i.e., Russia hacked the DNC server and Wikileaks leaked the hacked information.
Posted by: cityBear666 | Jan 19, 2017 10:34:41 AM | 29
Interesting. I'm not sure. I didn't watch O's speech, so thanks for the insight. I'm on the fence. I think it's easy to swap around the terms hack and leak, even given that O does to tend to use his words with care. It's possible he's tossing BigSpook, Inc, under the bus. At this point, though, I'm not sure how much it matters.
Posted by: RUKidding | Jan 19, 2017 10:41:27 AM | 30
"JibJab 2010" about sums up the whole 8 years of underwhelming, imo.
It just got bad after boy Bush and then went on down hill from there.
A tragedy indeed.
And who thinks the next circus in town is going to be any better?
Ok, the clown in chief might be marginally more entertaining than day time tv for a few months as he 'reality shows' the MSM and juices the CIA but be prepared for all illusions to be shattered in due course.
"History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce." - Karl Marx
Posted by: x | Jan 19, 2017 11:07:52 AM | 31
Clapper has said he felt the publication of the 35 page document was not and did not serve the best interests of anyone, as an under statement. An olive branch extended to the new admin? Add to this this current statement by Obama as a furthering of Clapper's statement intention. Perhaps some deal has been reached to prevent an all out administrative war within the managerial body of government. Perhaps the true rulers of America have seen the danger in prolonging the orchestrated divisiveness of the election noting they have sent an emissary in the form of Kissinger , now back and working behind the scene, to get the managerial class back on track? The whole Wiki email thing seems like a public outbreak of policy difference within the elite class. To continue with a Clintonian full court press against Russia and all that entails or to befriend Russia to some extent to try a break up the Resistance Bloc to get it to bend to a western elite dominated NWO?
Posted by: BRF | Jan 19, 2017 11:39:52 AM | 32
And, once again, Trump did not win the election, he just won the Electoral College.
Posted by: s | Jan 19, 2017 8:50:20 AM | 18
A most ignorant statement, and repeating it doesn't make it any less ignorant.
For your edification, there is no such thing as 'the election' - there are in fact FIFTY (50) state electionS, plus the District of Columbia. The winner of those INDIVIDUAL state elections becomes the President.
Thus, Donald J. Trump is indeed the LEGITIMATE President-Elect of the United STATES of America.
Posted by: crone | Jan 19, 2017 11:45:28 AM | 33
Nothing happens in politics that is not well planned in advance and the strategic plans of the ruling western elites is still the same. World domination under their auspices. A shift in tactics within the western elite class under intense debate of elitist factions could produce all the turmoil we have seen lately within the managerial class. The strategic end goal of world domination by the western elite in opposition to a multi polar world is still the end goal.
Posted by: BRF | Jan 19, 2017 11:49:07 AM | 34
crone@32 Yes, I am well aware there are people who don't believe America is one country, nor do they believe the American people are sovereign. They are open enemies of the nation. However, they cannot pose as friends of the Constitution either. They ignore the Preamble, which is manifestly "most ignorant."
Posted by: s | Jan 19, 2017 11:59:49 AM | 35
Gee, I guess I've been 86'ed from the bar since I often link to the cited publications regardless of their often being relevant to the topic at hand. I can understand being banned by the pseudo-progressive CommonDreams.org, but I guess I'll just grab my hat and coat and head for the exit before the bouncers arrive to escort me.
Posted by: karlof1 | Jan 19, 2017 12:11:09 PM | 36
i don't want to waste another moment on anything about obama..
@16 yonatan.. us gangster state is a good description of it..
@34 karlof1... i for one would be sorry to see you go!! i hope you stick around in spite of not being able to post articles from the sites b mentions in his post at top..
Posted by: james | Jan 19, 2017 12:20:43 PM | 37
@12 ghostship... mebbe - silly english for maybe..
Posted by: james | Jan 19, 2017 12:21:54 PM | 38
@ Posted by: karlof1 | Jan 19, 2017 12:11:09 PM | 34
karlof1. No one has been banned, regarding such. Such links are still valid, are welcome, in a post that is (paraphrasing b):
On-topic, containing well thought out comments and where such link/s directly support/s the posts content.
Posted by: Outraged | Jan 19, 2017 12:26:06 PM | 39
The outrageous, and possibly most surreal aspect, of the dizzy dossier and hack-leak operation, is that heads of the state intelligence services are becoming political personalities, and like the proverbial camel, have thrust their nose under the flap of the tent. It is no longer enough for them to discreetly withdraw into the shadows, while media and even media whom they control, carefully spread the Agency's crafted deceptions. They are seen working the room themselves.
Obama has commuted the harsh prison sentence that Chelsea Manning has been serving. And so Manning has found some relief at last, from a president who turned a blind eye to harsh treatment she received while in custody, and who publicly declared her to be guilty before her trial even started. It's hard to know whose interest Obama is serving with any precision, as he has remained a pretty slippery character. Is any sympathy or conscience involved?--or is he merely tying up some legal loose ends in his mind?
Obama has placed no impediment in the path of the intelligence agencies; and in fact, he has used one of his last executive orders to allow the nation's multitude of police agencies, federal and local, to browse the NSA database, without the formality of a warrant, in pursuit of any personal info on "suspects".
Maybe Obama's last, parsed words, are simply unintelligible on the subject of the leaks and/or hacks.
Posted by: Copeland | Jan 19, 2017 12:26:18 PM | 40
Other than the confusion of "leaked" what struck me hardest in Obama's quote was "the conclusions of the intelligence community . . . were not conclusive." This after the man had prejudiced the public by calling for a complete investigation then immediately pronounced it was the Russians with "it wouldn't surprise me" or "the Russians certainly are capable" or whatever it was. More lies from this spin master.
Posted by: zamyatin | Jan 19, 2017 12:42:34 PM | 41
I don't think Obama puts much thought into his actions. He simply does what people who happen to be around at the time tell him to, and these people possess a variety of views. This explains his zigzagging on all kinds of issues.
Posted by: mischi | Jan 19, 2017 1:01:46 PM | 42
Trump opponents are throwing anything they can to the wall to see if it sticks. Chelsea Manning (semi?) commutation would be one of these things. They'd hoped to get more mileage out of it than what they did. Their problem is that they insured that most people have don't even know who the hell Chelsea Manning is. The MSM buried the Manning story and the story of the Collateral Damage and video.
Posted by: fastfreddy | Jan 19, 2017 1:25:08 PM | 44
@ Posted by: Denis | Jan 19, 2017 1:10:25 PM | 43
Just dumpin' two raw links, both 'Off-Topic', with no 'well thought out, written, relevant post content, ON-TOPIC, and only where the links support the posts written contents' ... is ... somewhat ... brave ...
Clearly the above two links primary URL are not, yet, in b's spam, or 'awaiting moderation pre-approval' filters, yet.
Respectfully, to attempt to paraphrase both b's, previous *** META *** and current *** META *** update, our generous host, wishes to raise the standard, quality, content, relevance and discipline (On-Topic), of commenters/contributors posts (inclusive of any Links/references used, but especially the sort mentioned).
Any time b has to spend in Moderating his blog, MOA, is time taken from his leisure time & work commitments and also from time available to produce valued, well researched, Thread Articles ... hence, 'Disgruntled Moderator' ...
Still confused ?
Posted by: Outraged | Jan 19, 2017 1:28:49 PM | 45
Craig Murray makes the same point as b.
Obama owes Hillary nothing, he may be loyal to the Clintonian ideology/strategy but he must hate Hillary, who has been leaking charges that he is 'weak' on Syria and was behind the 50 State Department employees' protest to that effect.
Anyone who believes that Russia hacked the DNC should seek psychiatric help sooner rather than later.
Posted by: not h | Jan 19, 2017 1:52:57 PM | 46
@ Posted by: From The Hague | Jan 19, 2017 1:44:31 PM | 47
If determined to avoid a post 'requiring manual pre-approval', then don't use such links as described, or
reference the link title, without using a 'live' URL link, or
use an alternate link source that doesn't require 'pre-approval', or
simply quote directly the link contents (never in their entirety) in, ideally - BLOCKQUOTE - or alternately - Italics -, and
Only when and if they (the links or quoted content) support the actual posts content, you, the commenter/contributor, wrote ...
Full Truth ?
Posted by: Outraged | Jan 19, 2017 1:55:15 PM | 47
It's hard to know whose interest Obama is serving with any precision . . .
Respectfully disagree. I think we can surmise what interests Obama serves after the wars/proxy wars/drone strikes/etc. and bank bailouts/making Bush tax cuts permanent/etc.
Obama is deceitful. So I wouldn't read too much into any one move. Nor would I assume that any move that seems good is actually beneficial.
It could be a prelude to a pardon for Hillary. And, as has already been pointed out: Why didn't Obama commute her sentence to time served? Why the delay in release? Will she actually make it out alive?
Posted by: Jackrabbit | Jan 19, 2017 2:19:30 PM | 48
Outraged | Jan 19, 2017 1:28:49 PM | 46 in response to my 
Still confused ?
Outraged | Jan 19, 2017 1:55:15 PM | 50 in response to Hague’s 
simply quote directly the link contents (never in their entirety) in, ideally - BLOCKQUOTE - or alternately - Italics -,
Yes, I’m still confused, dude. What I’m confused about is: Who are you to be butting into these administrative issues that have nothing to do with you? Are you b’s surrogate, alter-ego, or lieutenant? Are you somehow authorized to be making rules or interpreting b’s rules? Has b deputized you as enforcer or adjudicator? If so, then we need to hear from b to verify your role/authority.
If not, STFU and STFD. Go fix yourself a white Russian and chill.
Posted by: Denis | Jan 19, 2017 2:22:55 PM | 49
@ Posted by: Denis | Jan 19, 2017 2:22:55 PM | 52
Re previous request, 'Dude' is ad-hominem, so is you acronym OD/STFU/STFD.
You and another poster asked open questions ... a helpful response and explanation was offered ... based on the *** META *** & update, and the last ten+ years of the Blog's operations. If you perceive that the offered explanation does not adhere to your interpretation/perception/comprehension, good for you and have a nice day.
It doesn't justify ad-hominem.
Then proceed to do whatsoever you care, in any way you desire, as you wish and see fit, regardless ... it's your party ... YMMV
Posted by: Outraged | Jan 19, 2017 2:41:03 PM | 50
Outraged | Jan 19, 2017 2:41:03 PM | 54
'Dude' is ad-hominem,
Where did you get that? There is nothing pejorative, profane, contemptuous, or rude about "dude." If you're not into that whole brevity thing, I can use "duderino," to paraphrase The Dude. Better yet, don't respond to my comments w/ your self-aggrandizing BS, and I won't have any reason to address you in any manner.
Stranger: "Now . . . 'dude.' Where I come from, that's a term that nobody would self-apply. But then, there's a lot about the dude that didn't make a whole lot of sense to me, and the place he came from, likewise."
Posted by: Denis | Jan 19, 2017 3:01:34 PM | 53
@56. Some confusion about Assange. Various MSM organs this morning were talking about him backing away, reneging and retreating.
Now this. Hard to know what's going on. Is he hoping to get a deal from Donald?
The delay in Manning's release is so that she can find a suitable place to live. That's the official version anyway.
Posted by: dh | Jan 19, 2017 3:02:05 PM | 54
@ Posted by: Denis | Jan 19, 2017 3:01:34 PM | 57
Your repeated, determined & deliberate attempts to 'bait' this poster and persistent disingenuous ad-hominem are futile, & will not succeed. Been there, done that. See *** META ***.
One has to really take ones hat off to you. ... te ipsum et caballum tuum.
Wishing you the very best of luck. Good Day.
Posted by: Outraged | Jan 19, 2017 3:16:33 PM | 55
b, your #2 *** META ***
I just tried to post with a link (not any of those sites referenced in your META) and was unable to review it before posting. I have in the past always Previewed my posts and checked that the links worked properly before posting. A serves to readers, I believe. This latest post that I attempted was cut off just before the link in the preview.
Will this be a new impediment to thoroughly checking our posts and links before it passes the spam filter?
My attempted post is as follows (probably without the links):
@b re your headline:
(At the time around the leaking the DNC IT-administrator Seth Rich was found murdered for no apparent reason in the streets of Washington DC. The murder case was never solved.)
I don’t think I am alone in my belief/speculation, but I believe Killery and co. are psychologically certifiable psychopaths. I think psychopathy is the major driver of the disastrous quagmire that America has sunk into.
For your consideration:
Posted by: juannie | Jan 19, 2017 3:17:51 PM | 56
What's his name (oh, yeah, Obama...) is one day from becoming a total nobody, so who cares about what he says... His latest inanity (summarized as "We loved Russia all along, and did everything we could to help it, but bad Putin messed it all up, we just don't know what to do with this horrible person") is so divorced from reality, that one has to wonder if there are any sane people left in Washington DC. I doubt it.
Posted by: telescope | Jan 19, 2017 3:20:14 PM | 57
the links of my 60 are as followed without the http tags:
https://www.sott.net/article/148141-The-Trick-%20of-the-Psychopath-s-Trade-Make-Us-Believe-that-Evil-Comes-from-Others/ The Trick of the Psychopath's Trade: Make Us Believe that Evil Comes from Others
…crimes of passion. Normal people can commit acts of violence while in states of extreme emotional arousal, but psychopaths cold-bloodedly select their victims for revenge or retribution or to achieve some end. That is to say that psychopathic violence is instrumental, a means to an end, predatory.
I see from my preview that the link works without the HREF tags.
Posted by: juannie | Jan 19, 2017 3:21:03 PM | 58
Seth Rich was found murdered for no apparent reason in the streets of Washington DC. The murder case was never solved.)
While the reason for the murder is not apparent, one can surmise that Mr. Rich had access to information or knowledge which others did not want to be revealed publicly or revealed to the wrong people. Rich was not trusted to keep this information secret, therefore he was killed. His murder eliminated any future issues that may have arisen were Mr. Rich to have been allowed to live.
While it is possible that Mr Rich threatened someone with the act of revealing this information, or that he was staging an act of blackmail, we can only guess. We do know that Rich was mixed up with some very dangerous psychopaths and that he was engaged in the business of information.
Posted by: fast freddy | Jan 19, 2017 3:39:19 PM | 59
Free for all till end of inauguration!
Posted by: Mina | Jan 19, 2017 3:41:20 PM | 60
I didn't watch either the farewell speech or the press conference, but I did go to the link b has provided to the transcript of the press conference and read the surrounding paragraphs to the comment in question. My point would be that the press question and following remarks are to the commutation of Chelsea Manning's sentence. The question about wikileaks and the dc emails was an insert - which b has taken as 'the meat in the sandwich', though I am not sure if that is the case.
What I understand from the remark "I don't pay a lot of attention to Mr. Assange's tweets" is that whilst wikileaks has been a burr under this Administration's saddle, Obama is above tweeting (unlike Trump and others, of course), being much more presidential as to following the procedures to leave it up to the Justice department to - oh I don't know - prosecute, extradite, treat him worse than Manning for the remainder of his years...just throwing that out there to maybe run up the flagpole after I'm gone. . .
Thanks, b. It was worthwhile being reminded that Obama is sticking to his guns (literally) in accusing Russia of 'invading' Ukraine (hence the sanctions) whilst the press corp again showed their cojones in not questioning 'why then Guantanamo?' or 'how come Cuba hasn't sanctioned us?'
Plus he reminded everyone at the start that the elder Bushes are "really good people". Which sort of reminded me of Trump's saying of the Clintons that they were also "really good people." I guess he hopes we'll say he and Michelle were "really good people" as that's how you remember former WH residents.
Posted by: juliania | Jan 19, 2017 3:41:47 PM | 61
RT is also reporting the news that Assange intends to go to the U.S.
Posted by: lysias | Jan 19, 2017 3:46:17 PM | 62
I think that slightly underreported news of a joint-op of Turkish and Russian Air forces against ISIS targets in Syria is really significant and rather big symbolic blow to the whole Obama Administration.
Symbolics of it all is that Russia and a NATO country could work together for the whole world to see.
Maybe it can be seen as an answer to a Russian alleged hacking/leaking/meddling with USA?
I also think that Obama spoke a bit apologetic and in a some sort of a code saying what we know all the time - "I did what I could, not what I wanted and many expected me to do."
That includes the mess with elections, mails, Administration/IC/Clinton run offensive against Putin and I suppose even idea of arming ISIS.
There was some pretty big number of people in Administration that he ought to work with, not that he wanted to and mainly those people shaped his international affairs posture.
Not that I excuse the guy, as for me and Obama and H.Clinton were from my European viewpoint far rightwing anyway. I just wonder how far from that position Trump is willing to go?
Posted by: laserlurk | Jan 19, 2017 4:04:11 PM | 63
Like Obama had quipped about himself, "Turns out, I'm really good at killing".
Really Good at killing. Just like the Bushes and all the other presidents. Odds are that Trump will probably be good at killing also. If you're a betting person, you can't ignore the odds.
Posted by: fast freddy | Jan 19, 2017 4:19:13 PM | 64
here's a link to the craig murray take on what b has posted.. here is the pertinent quote from murray "Obama’s reference to the “the DNC emails that were leaked” appears very natural, fluent and unforced. It is good to have the truth finally told." as for the (almost gone) liar in chief and his phony dance on chelsea manning, i can't understand why assange would consider going to the usa! with the whole system and structure of us politics /media given over to hating any truth or revelations on the usa's real role in international affairs, they will just eat him alive and spit him out the other side.. now, i would love to be ''shocked'' by some possible surprise by trump, but i consider that extremely low odds..
Posted by: james | Jan 19, 2017 4:21:32 PM | 65
Truth, as a parting shot for Obama? Maybe, but he's spent 8 yrs. avoiding it by doing the empire's bidding.
Posted by: ben | Jan 19, 2017 4:25:54 PM | 66
The CIA’s new document dump confirms that the CIA works for Wall Street, not the U.S. CIAs role in financial markets EXPOSED by documents release:
So now that the CIA has released 13 Million files and will continue to release more every year on the Crest archive, it will provide investors, historians, authors, academics, bankers, and others the evidence they need to research and confirm what we already knew: The CIA is an agency-employee that works for international banks first, and US Citizens second.
So will the CIA now tank the markets to make Trump look bad?
Posted by: lysias | Jan 19, 2017 4:44:21 PM | 67
How's this for an explanation?
Manning's release is red meat for a base that is needed to protest/obstruct/remove Trump.
Leading to the question: If Hillary had been elected, would Obama have let Manning go free?
Posted by: Jackrabbit | Jan 19, 2017 4:51:14 PM | 68
Obama uses final press conference to smooth transition to Trump
Obama began the press conference with a sickening and absurd paean to the White House press corps, describing the domesticated and cowardly correspondents as heroes of American democracy. “You’re supposed to cast a critical eye on folks who hold enormous power and make sure that we are accountable to the people who sent us here,” Obama declared, “and you have done that.”
... quoth the world socialist web site.
How the NYT Plays with History
Whenever The New York Times or some other mainstream news outlet holds itself out as a paragon of professional journalism – by wagging a finger at some pro-Trump “fake news” or some Internet “conspiracy theory” – I cringe at the self-delusion and hypocrisy.
No one hates fake news and fact-free conspiracy theories more than I do, but the sad truth is that the mainstream press has opened the door to such fantasies by losing the confidence of the American people and becoming little more than the mouthpiece for the Establishment, which spins its own self-serving narratives and tells its own lies.
... and that's the simple truth, copiously documented in Robert Parry's article.
NYT Ignored Reality at 2001 Bush Inauguration; Now Ignorance Is History
Given the paper of record’s strenuous downplaying of the 2001 inaugural protests in the name of “Tradition and Legitimacy,” it’s not surprising that 16 years later, the paper’s reporters remember those protests as being “modest.”
... the fairness and accuracy in reporting site also cites the history of dissimulation at the nytimes with reference to this inauguration.
the tnc msm are apologists for the 'deep state' ... for the omnipresent, plutocratic interests that remain constant as presidents and congresses come and go - producing their fake news since time immemorial.
in this case they are giving obama a chance to burnish his 'legacy' and to smooth the transition to the tee-rump administration. packed with g-saxaphonists, militarists and zionists it is perfectly continuous with what's gone before. whatever change its strategy for world domination, its tactical changes remain to be seen.
Posted by: jfl | Jan 19, 2017 6:56:56 PM | 70
Trump's framed as being non-traditional and thus unpredictable by those knowing better. For Trump to actually break the mold of previous presidential tradition, he'll need to enforce the law and arrest most of Obama's administration for its numerous crimes; to not do so, Trump himself becomes just another dittohead like Obama and thus delegitimizes and destroys his carefully constructed persona all by himself. By all rights he should then obey his own mantra and Fire Himself.
Posted by: karlof1 | Jan 19, 2017 7:46:45 PM | 71
It was a Freudian Slip.
Posted by: Bill Warrick | Jan 19, 2017 11:07:30 PM | 74
Truth, as a parting shot for Obama? Maybe, but he's spent 8 yrs. avoiding it by doing the empire's bidding.
Posted by: ben | Jan 19, 2017 4:25:54 PM | 70
Hi ben, actually Obama waited 8 years to abstain from a resolution condemning Israel, so I suspect both the resolution and this slip are parting shots, but not so much to Intelligence Services and not dissing Hillary either.
Trump represents the decline of the Empire. Trump is a fitting example of the decadence that capitalism engenders. He’s also a political and foreign policy neophyte. Enter Kissinger and the pack of Zionist wolves maneuvering to exploit this Presidency; and I’ll get to Putin later.
I’ve asked this question before: CUI BONO? Who benefits or is already benefitting? Did Seth Rich and Wasserman Shultz fall on their swords to benefit Zionism? Were they involved in the leaks? I believe this was an insider job with foreign influence.
Only Trump promised to move the Embassy to Jerusalem, designate Jerusalem the capital of Zionism and only Trump promised to tear up the Iran deal from day one and escalate hostility with Iran; Hillary was sticking with the program previous Presidents stuck to on Israel.
Trump’s promises to Israel were unprecedented and the stakes were very high for Zionists, therefore something had to be done to nudge Trump over the edge and the leak could have come from Zionists inside the DNC.
When Obama referred to leaked, was this Freudian slip, was it unintentional or was it intended to plant a seed of doubt? If deliberate, it wouldn’t be to diss Hillary. There’s more to this, and someone from outside the mainstream should have picked up on this slip and put the question of whether this was deliberate to Obama’s press secretary before they packed it up.
Ever notice when Obama scratches his temple with his middle finger? It’s intentional. That’s an Obama idiosyncrasy; the subtle FU.
Another Obama idiosyncrasy is the way he pauses to think and kind of stutters to measure every word; which makes me suspect this is not an unintended slip. Hey, Obama’s free now – to take a shot and sow some doubt or clue. Trump’s the new lackey in town to do the Empire’s bidding, the deep-state’s guardian.
Now back to exploiting the neophyte in Trump. I’m starting to get Putin’s perspective and game plan. It’s not that he necessarily trusts Trump or believes he’ll agree with him; it’s that Trump presents a singular opportunity for Russia to turn geopolitics in its favor and Putin, rightly so, will exploit that opportunity every which way he can to further the Empire’s unraveling.
Here’s a really good article that wasn’t authored by Putin, but could be exactly what he’s thinking as it relates to the EU and from there to check mate Kissinger’s long-term plan for the Empire.
Maybe Putin discerned that Trump is a bridge burner amongst other things that foreshadow the ultimate undoing of the Empire, and this is the real reason he favored Trump.
Posted by: Circe | Jan 19, 2017 11:17:56 PM | 75
Actually, it's way more than interesting. X describes the Empire's game plan to a T!
“It is important not to attribute too much importance to either Kissinger or Brzezinski as they are merely fronts for those who make the decisions and it is their job to cloak the decisions with a patina of intellectuality. Their input means relatively nothing. I use their names on occasion as I cannot use the names of those who actually make the decisions.”
That’s the cue for “X” to detail the new normal; “Trump was elected with the support of the Masters to tilt towards Russia. The Masters have their tools in the media and Congress maintaining a vilification campaign against Russia, and have their puppet Brzezinski also come out against Russia, stating ‘America’s global influence depends on cooperation with China’. The purpose is to threaten Russia to cooperate and place these chips on the negotiating table for Trump. In a traditional good cop-bad cop approach, Donald is portrayed as the good cop wanting good relations with Russia, and Congress, media, Brzezinski are the bad cops. This is to aid Trump in the negotiations with Russia as Putin sees the ‘precarious’ position of his friend and should be willing to make major concessions as the line goes.”
And when you consider the number of experts the Masters think tanks employ to analyze in detail every global geopolitical nuance it's not a stretch to the kind of scheme he describes. I mean these think tank experts spend their days only studying everything out there and cooking up strategies to ensure the Empire's dominance. The machinations of the Empire are a kind of industry on their own like the MIC; they are part of the machinery of domination.
These think tanks produce periodical studies that expose and try to counter the ambitions and emerging influence of rival powers; China, Russia and Iran. Just the other day, I read this fascinating article regarding China's efforts to develop alternative land-based routes for its energy imports that could not be threatened by U.S. influence as maritime routes which the U.S. could block to shut down or contain China's energy supply should hostility escalate between them.
This article appears in The Diplomat an online news magazine partnered with the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) and other think-tanks.
Here's the article:
So the Masters have several tools to ensure the Empire's continuing dominance including: Intelligence, MIC, Congress, Wall Street, Media and Think Tanks continually scrutinizing, plotting, spying, harassing, terrorizing and inflicting different types of tyranny on the Empire's rivals.
Posted by: Circe | Jan 20, 2017 1:11:43 AM | 76
Who's been playing Obama's foreign policy since 2008?
We have the disastrous Hillary Clinton gang in Libya, the murkey Leon Panetta/John Brennan CIA gang in Syria, and the Ashton Carter gang in the Pentagon.
Obama should never have let Hillary Clinton run the State Department, her push for the Libyan agenda was a disaster of epic proportions - and Panetta and the Clinton gang and McCain and Graham, all calling for a replay of that debacle in Syria, what a pack of idiots. And of course it was Ashton Carter behind the coalition assault on Syrian government forces in Deir Ezzor, probably ordered it personally, to open up an opportunity for ISIS. Was Obama pressured to take on Carter?
A better option back during the Arab Spring would have been to stop Gaddafi's tanks from attacking Benghazi via aerial bombardment, while leaving Gaddafi in power - while also bombing the Saudi tanks that were rolling into Bahrain to crush the pro-democracy movement there (call the attack on Saudi tanks "an unfortunate accident" as with Deir Ezzor).
Ashton Carter, though, he's the poster boy for the military-industrial-Congressional complex, along with John McCain - who, astonishingly, went overboard trying to sabotage his own party's president. Not even the Obama detractors in the Democratic Party tried to pull that in 2008 (though Hillary Clinton might have done so had she not been promised State, right?). Check out the Ashton Carter bio at the Project on Government Oversight for an eye-opener:
His relationship to Raytheon is worth taking a look at; Raytheon survives off Saudi Arabian sales of systems like the TOW-II antitank missile, which curiously enough rapidly made its way into the hands of ISIS. . .
(1)"Why Is Saudi Arabia Buying 15,000 U.S. Anti-Tank Missiles for a War It Will Never Fight?, Dec 2013"
http://foreignpolicy.com/2013. . .
(2)"ISIS is now deploying US-supplied TOW Anti-tank Missiles in Syria, Jan 2015"
https://levantreport.com/2015. . .
Looking into it a bit more, it seems the real reason Chuck Hagel was fired and Ashton Carter installed is that Hagel viewed ISIS as a much greater threat than Assad, and that was against the views of the foreign policy establishment in Washington, who still viewed ISIS as a useful proxy force for overthrowing Assad, a theme that Ashton Carter embraced:
Posted by: nonsense factory | Jan 20, 2017 1:12:12 AM | 77
nf @ 84 said: "Who's been playing Obama's foreign policy since 2008?"
Answer..People who's names most of us never hear of on the evening "news". Most folks hate the "puppets" who front for the real powers behind the throne. When those powers start feeling the ire of the working masses, only then, can we have real change. As always, follow the money. It's just business.
See Pro Peace@ 80, & Circe @ 82 & 83. IMO they nail it. Thanks for the links.
Posted by: ben | Jan 20, 2017 2:14:17 AM | 78
I don't understand the reactivity of the people who don't accept that some links could take 24 hours to appear.
In some cases, we want to attract attention on a good article, and why should it be a problem if b wants to use it in a post rather than let it go anonymously in the comments section?
In other cases, some paid people might want to put b's site into troubles by posting links or fake links (that look like it is a standard website but with a small modif is actually something else) that bring the person who clicks on it to something hardcore or simply dangerous to visit, given the laws that have been passed almost everywhere now. Not everyone is a tecchie using Tor and else.
Posted by: Mina | Jan 20, 2017 5:35:36 AM | 82
@ Posted by: ben | Jan 20, 2017 2:14:17 AM | 85 & Pro Peace@ 80, & Circe @ 82 & 83.
IMO they nail it.
Am so very confused. There seems to be a distinct lack of clarity and specificity, re 'Nailing it'.
Propeace simply dumped a link, bare, in isolation by Pepe Escobar, filled with rhetoric re 'Masters' supposedly at War with the 'Deep State' ?! WTF?!
Circe uses a keyword, with variations, rather vaguely ~ 6 times in 82, then their is all this talk of 'Masters' ... perhaps y'all can be much more specific, and enlighten the Bar, re 'IMO they nail it'.
This contributor, and unlikely to be alone, is well, so very, very confused and essentially uninformed, by what 80, 82, 83 & 85, are getting at, re 'Nailing it' ?
Would be much appreciated. ;)
Posted by: Outraged | Jan 20, 2017 5:56:06 AM | 83
Oops. My visits here are fleeting and yesterday I misread the META. Have a Reality Check with Ben Swann https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CNIrPLHVfdI
Apparently Google demonitize all his YouTubes. Not quite censorship but an active discouragement.
Posted by: Stubbs | Jan 20, 2017 6:46:15 AM | 84
@ Posted by: Stubbs | Jan 20, 2017 6:46:15 AM | 91
Thank you :)
'Reality Check: 5 Problems with CIA Claim That Russia Hacked DNC/Podesta emails', Highly recommended ***** stars.
It's a really great link re a CBS affiliate actually doing a brief (4Min43Sec) segment. Literally stand-out, succinct, clear, 'fact packed', amazingly 'real' journalism/reporting re Brennan-Clapper-CIA/ODNI, ie the Evil Russkie 'Hacking' unsupported by ANY evidence, that likely never was re the 'Leaks', that were ...
Yes indeed, very unsurprising Google approaches actual censorship for such affiliate CBS reporting by the MSM :(
A remote faint glimmer of hope other affiliates may return to facts and real journalsim/reporting, as opposed to be stenographers of organized Psyop campaign narratives, in order to literally financially survive viewers who ever increasingly ... just ... switch ... off ... and go elsewhere, ie alternate media, Blogs, ProPornOTs *ahem*, recommended list of #Real News sites (~200) ? ;)
Posted by: Outraged | Jan 20, 2017 7:17:03 AM | 85
Posted by: Mina | Jan 20, 2017 5:35:36 AM | 89
You nailed it!
Not at all...
It has nothing to do with fake links or with new posts from b.
I will repeat it for you.
Try to read it and try to understand it:
All comments with links to The Saker, Duran, South Front, Syrian Perspective will for now go into moderation and will be posted (or deleted) only after I reviewed them (usually in less then 24 hours).
Posted by: From The Hague | Jan 20, 2017 7:18:49 AM | 86
In France it is now legally forbidden to watch anything djihad related. So if someone has a link with some IS vids, and that someone in France opens this website, you can get under house arrest unless you are "working in the field", i.e. police, academic, journalist.
Posted by: Mina | Jan 20, 2017 9:32:18 AM | 87
@ Posted by: Tom Murphy | Jan 20, 2017 3:36:35 AM | 87
Thank you :)
Yet another very well researched, clear, concise & succint (5Min02Sec) presentation on:
Hacking the WHAT? See How the Media Pushes Propaganda on Us, from Representative News.
See how dishonest and manipulative the media's use of the phrase "hacking the election" is. AND hear details about who was the most manipulative of the American public during the campaigns (during BOTH the primaries and the general election!)
A main point of this video is to expose the mass media's manipulative terms "election hack" and "hacking the election." For example Trump didn't use the term "Election Hacks." There's more
to say about this propaganda campaign, and I'll talk more about it in part II.
The continued ability of the mainstream media to claim the leaks lost Clinton the election because of “Russia,”, while still never acknowledging the truths the leaks reveal, is Kafkaesque. ...
Also covers the relevance of the Clinton/DNC/Podesta server/emails, in context. Contains detailed additional, expanded text, numerous supporting links and references.
@ Posted by: From The Hague
b is promoting the words of a lazy, lying hypocrite. @ 48
b: "We therefore can not expect that they will report this
presidential parting shot at all." ...
"this presidential parting shot": not a fact at all, ... @73
I will repeat it for you. Try to read it and try to understand it: @95
tee-rump, zionists @ 77
- yet skip over 6 instances of 'zionists'
@ 82 ?
In ones twilight years, one does unfortunately sometimes get so very, very, confused, assume there may be others who may be in the same situation also. Perhaps you could expand upon the above, extremely, 'brief', comments(?) & terse qoutes, to remove such confusion and assist barflies at, b's Bar, MOA, understand/comprehend what you may in fact be trying to say ?
Discussion & honest, civil, factual debate, is the very life blood of the Bar, is it not ? ;) Would be most welcome & appreciated. ;)
Perhaps you may proffer it has something to do with Solzhenitsyn ... & that his writings, somehow, holds the key ? A fascinating topic, no ? Interested in discussing his body of works in the Open Thread ?
By chance, did you perhaps, take a few moments, to review b's explicit update, inclusive of explicit 'previous' *** META ***, and the subsequent following Barflies discussions/posts re same ?
In effect, to paraphrase as politely as possible, excluding certain 'words/phrases' from the 'previous' meta : ''ON-TOPIC', well thought out, written post contents, 'Relevant' to published Thread Lead Article/Header, and only where the links support the posts written contents'.
Fortunately for us all, our generous host & patron, b, specifically provides rolling 'Open Threads' for 'Off Topic (OT)' posts and discussion ... :)
Posted by: Outraged | Jan 20, 2017 9:35:38 AM | 88
@ 93 I see an ad on his video. It is MY CHANNEL that is hardest hit with demonetization. I talk about it here and ask people to sign the YouTUbe petition:
Posted by: Tom Murphy | Jan 20, 2017 10:17:41 AM | 89
Just saw one of Trump's Zionist masters, Sheldon Adelson, ushered to his seat at the capitol inauguration ceremony. Now he's shaking hands with Newt Gingrich. $125 million investment buys a whole lot. Ahhh...Dick Cheney, the tool of Zionist doom, just showed up with a grin from ear to ear. No doubt Zionist Machiavelli, Kissinger, is not far behind.
As of tomorrow, Trump is responsible for all the shit the Empire pulls. As of tomorrow Trump is fair game, the buck stops with him and I'm hoping his feet will be held to the fire by all who are against imperial hegemony and who believe Zionist hubris stinks.
I will be one of those who ensures that no bullshet, no spin happens and that whatever opacity his administration plans is flooded with light.
Posted by: Circe | Jan 20, 2017 10:24:43 AM | 90
b provides Open Threads for a reason. Outraged is trying to be helpful.
With that said, we all know that the discussion tends to veer off course in the later part threads. I don't think that's a big deal. Its a very natural as people add info about different aspects of a post and reply to same.
But we are now seeing "any stick to beat a dog" comments whereby certain commenters use elements of any discussion to bash Trump. Then others join in and the conversation is hijacked. This is common enough that Outraged is trying to direct Trump-bashing to the Open Thread also.
Posted by: Jackrabbit | Jan 20, 2017 10:36:49 AM | 91
Sooo interesting that Wasserman Shultz, at the heart of the DNC leak, didn't boycott the inauguration. There's a whole lot of irony there if you read my theory regarding the leak in @84 above. Surely, if any Democrat among the dozens boycotting had reason to boycott, she had had the most significant, and yet there she is. Her boss, Schumer, not far behind. Guess they came to witness the result of their handiwork; Adelson's choice, and the deep-state's candidate, ascending to the Presidency.
Posted by: Circe | Jan 20, 2017 10:46:56 AM | 92
@ Posted by: Jackrabbit | Jan 20, 2017 10:36:49 AM | 101
One is merely one of, b's longstanding, dutiful, humble servants ... ;)
Unavoidably & regretfully ... Re
"any stick to beat a dog"
see post 92 especially, and the following in 'only
', just, two posts, being 84 & 100:
Israel, Israel, Israel, & Zionists, zionists, zionist, & zionist doom, & zionist machiavelli, & Zionist Hubris, & pack of zionist wolves, & benefit zionism, & capital of zionism, & Putin, Putin, Putin, Putin, & Putin, & Ttrump, & Trump, & Trump, & Trump, & Trump, & Trump, & Trump, & Trump, & Trump, & Trump, & Trump, & Trump, & Trump, & Trump ... I will be one of those who ensures that no bullshet, no spin happens ...
What a keyword/association count?! Relevant Reference:
Text January 17, 2017
How The U.S. Enabled ISIS To Take Deir Ezzor
b, @ 1:
*** META ***
@all - I have deleted a bunch of comments in some recent threads that
- used various anti-Jewish claptraps
The blog lives since a decade through relevant comments on the presented issues. If you are too lazy to make decent ones shut up.
Alas, *sigh* :(
Posted by: Outraged | Jan 20, 2017 11:05:28 AM | 93
97 / Mina
Horrible development. Could you give us some links/sources?
Posted by: Anonymous | Jan 20, 2017 11:12:21 AM | 94
@97 mina.. thanks.. that's shocking..
jackrabbit / outraged.. you two are a hell of a tag team.. save the 'sigh' for the rest of us here..
Posted by: james | Jan 20, 2017 11:35:14 AM | 95
@ Posted by: james | Jan 20, 2017 11:35:14 AM | 106
See: - were just random one-liners irrelevant to any discussion - threw ad-hominem. Wasted text. Water off a ducks back. This poster will not be, 'baited'. Good Day :)
Posted by: Outraged | Jan 20, 2017 11:46:20 AM | 96
I'm watching the ceremony on TV. First impressions...
Good turnout from the Silent Majority. Glum looks from Mr. and Mrs. Clinton.
The young Trump son is quite amusing. He looks like a mini-Donald. If he ever learns to smile he could go far.
Not much in the way of protests so far. A few people waving bits of cardboard. I might have spotted Circe smashing a shop window.
Posted by: dh | Jan 20, 2017 11:48:28 AM | 97
I don't think 'tag team' is in any way accurate.
And I don't think we are the only ones that cringe when anti-Trump comments devolve into an attack on Moonkind for not being sufficiently vigilant.
Posted by: Jackrabbit | Jan 20, 2017 11:49:17 AM | 98
LOL! The dual-screen of Schumer and Trump is funny.
Posted by: Jackrabbit | Jan 20, 2017 11:52:25 AM | 99