US Erection 12 *AND* 16 *AND* 20 *AND* 22 *AND* 24 *AND* Beyond

[Chef Boi RD]

The Trump fans remind me of Jim Jones followers. They simply have no idea what they signed up for and the ass they are kissing. Toppers America (outside of his ex friend - Washington State) is like watching a Trainwreck

[Cornuck]

So much for Chef not trolling the B&G....

[Chef Boi RD]

You’re right, I’ll stop…try to…I can’t guarantee that, but I’ll try, lord I will try !! Praise the lord!!!

https://youtu.be/dBekcX6qnpI?si=SOHgyj2Q35yCAkbt

[donlever]

You're....in suspension....

https://youtu.be/6gVg3ttSQzg?si=6ZUXezcug6GDFF34

[Per]

Tulsi Gabbard as head of national intelligence is a problem. A lot of people suspect her of being a Russian asset, based on the amount of Russian propaganda she has helped spread, and several European countries now have concerns over whether they should continue to share intelligence with the USA.

The suspiscion itself can hurt the coperation between the USA and its European allies, whether it is true or not, so it would have been better if Trump had appointed someone who was more widely respected. But I guess he has never understood the intricacies of diplomacy.

[Topper]

Has there been anything on Tulsi other than the smear from Hilary? Occurred just after she destroyed Harris on the debate stage.

At that point it became a Dem dog pile as they ate one of their own. Not too different than they did to Bernie Sanders when he ran against Hilary.

Tulsi is still an active member of the National Guard.

[donlever]

https://x.com/liz_churchill10/status/18 ... TM8cQ&s=19

Hit the vid for a little CCR.

[donlever]

https://x.com/wideawake_media/status/18 ... Smj5Q&s=19

[Per]

Has there been anything on Tulsi other than the smear from Hilary? Occurred just after she destroyed Harris on the debate stage.

At that point it became a Dem dog pile as they ate one of their own. Not too different than they did to Bernie Sanders when he ran against Hilary.

Tulsi is still an active member of the National Guard.

No, this is about Gabbard consistently taking the Russian side in international affairs and often echoing Russian propaganda. And about the concern that raises among US allies.

Over the last decade, Gabbard has stood out for her foreign policy views. She has long-been skeptical of American intelligence analysis and has taken public policy positions that echo Russian propaganda.

While in Congress in 2017, Gabbard met with Syrian dictator Bashar Assad after the U.S. had broken diplomatic relations with the country over his bloody crackdown against his own people. Russia is a long-time backer of Assad and has supplied troops and weapons to prop up Assad’s government during Syria’s 13-year-long civil war. Gabbard said the U.S. should not be supporting opposition fighters in the country, which were being assisted by American intelligence services.
Later that year, after the Syrian military attacked civilians with sarin and chlorine in the town of Ltamenah in northern Syria, Gabbard echoed Russian denials that Assad was behind a chemical weapons attack. A United Nations investigation later concluded that the Syrian Air Force dropped the chemicals.

Weeks after Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022, Gabbard posted a video espousing a disproven conspiracy theory that alleged pathogens could leak from biolabs in Ukraine, a theory advanced by Russia as part of its propaganda attempt to press for a ceasefire. Then-Rep. Adam Kinzinger, R-Ill., said Gabbard had embraced “actual Russian propaganda” and called it “traitorous.” Sen. Mitt Romney, R-Utah, said Gabbard was “parroting fake Russian propaganda.”

https://time.com/7176696/gabbard-russia ... elligence/

[UWSaint]

Beyond Sanders, Trump too, was a Russian agent. According to Hilary and the intelligence community. Hunter Biden’s laptop—which included evidence* of the Big Guy’s corruption w/r/t foreign affairs—was Russian disinformation according to the intelligence community. The 2016 election was “stolen” according to a large number of democrats (including Hilary, to a degree) was because of Russian interference with the election. We’re bio lab concerns in Ukraine debunked? Many many many things have been debunked by the “intelligence community” (and its propagandists at Time magazine and other news outlets with deep sources in the intelligence community) that turned out to be true or where the evidence is much more rightly categorized as inconclusive. (E.g., Covid leak, Nordstream) I don’t know enough about the biolab to have an opinion on that particular theory, I just know the intelligence community runs a propaganda machine here and abroad (as well as gathers intelligence), and that propaganda’s organizing value is not truth, but the advancement of the intelligence community’s interests—interests that sometimes appear to deviate from the United States’ interests as established by the President and sometimes reflect the foreign policy interests established by the President (see weapons of mass destruction….)

When Gabbard met with the Syrian President in 2017 (as part of a fact finding mission in her role as member of Congress), the meeting alone tarred her as a Syrian asset—by Gabbard’s political adversaries. In her freshman term as a member of Congress, Gabbard held foreign policy positions that opposed the Obama administration. From that point forward, many in the Obama/Clinton/intel community had an interest in undermining Gabbard — because Gabbard held views that if she could gather coalitions would undermine them. Attack and undermine the messenger, don’t engage the message, Alinsky’s rules. That attack was recycled in the 2019 dem primary campaign, reduced to some brainless canard that no one should ever meet with murderous leaders and that if you do you must wholesale be in their pocket. Nixon goes to China didn’t make him Chinese asset—and was there a more murderous regime?

We see this “talk to enemies makes you an enemy” mentality with Russia, too. Tucker Carlson was a Russian asset for doing an interview with Putin; people who try to understand Putin’s rationale for the war are Russian sympathizers (when, of course, if our state department and intelligence community did *not* understand his perspective, they’d be making diplomatic and other decisions without understanding the likelihood they’d make war more likely or less likely).

Abstracting a bit, there is always an institutional tension when members of congress go beyond just the information the intelligence community wants it to know through the intel committees. The intelligence community fears legislators can be duped, or compromised. Fair enough. The legislators fear they aren’t getting the full truth or that State or the intelligence community can be acting with institutional blinders and circle-the-wagon mentality—also fair enough. The intel community has forever used kompromat to keep friends and adversaries in check—anyone doubt this? Whether that kompromat is true is almost irrelevant — might it be believed? (I sometimes wonder if the intelligence community’s “Russian disinformation” lie in the laptop had less to do with supporting Biden and more to do with “if this is out there, we don’t get to use it when we need it”.)

The point of all of this is Gabbard appointment threatens the intelligence community because she threatens to lay bare those instances where the intelligence community acts for its own preservation at the expense of or in furtherance of it’s own view of American interests when it’s view is not aligned with the President (or other intelligence services, for that matter—they don’t all have the same institutional views). The predictable response is to try to smother the nomination, and to use its many assets (and dupes proud of having unnamed sources) in the press to do that. Of course if Gabbard were in fact a foreign agent (I don’t believe she is, but how would I know if she were a spy?), the intelligence apparatus would be pulling the same levers (and of course the FBI would be presenting all of this intel to the President elect as part of vetting process—so long as FBI actually has the information). From the outside, it is impossible to tell from the intelligence community “sources” apparent agitation whether the danger is to the USA or to them—and that’s the very ambiguity they seek to maintain by getting appointed leaders they can capture. Because there is no question that in one way of looking at things, the perceived integrity of the intelligence services is very much in the United States’ interests and that undermining that perceived integrity will have adverse consequences to the United States’ interests—even the trade off is to align perception with reality. The intelligence services wants leaders who buy this way of looking at the world. They will manage with “reform”, they will probably accept being reeled in here and there, but they can’t abide being exposed.

Last bit on Gabbard’s nomination—I think the question of her foreign policy orientations need to be looked at in context. Trump will set the foreign policy. Rubio, who is much more mainstream and willing to intervene than Trump’s baseline, will implement it and be a key advisor to it. Gabbard’s a single voice at the table, and not a primary one. I suspect her charge will be to root out corruption and get a handle on the intelligence agencies’ operations involving gathering intelligence (and engaging in propaganda) on Americans.

I am not bothered by this charge or the nomination. I presume (though the senate should vet) that Gabbard understands the importance of intelligence to America’s security and pursuit of American interests so the baby is not thrown out with the bath water.

[UWSaint]

Tulsi Gabbard as head of national intelligence is a problem. A lot of people suspect her of being a Russian asset, based on the amount of Russian propaganda she has helped spread, and several European countries now have concerns over whether they should continue to share intelligence with the USA.

The suspiscion itself can hurt the coperation between the USA and its European allies, whether it is true or not, so it would have been better if Trump had appointed someone who was more widely respected. But I guess he has never understood the intricacies of diplomacy.

I think the careerists at State have a harder time with the intricacies of diplomacy than Trump. I think they believe they are the masters of the universe (see Victoria Nuland), yet they can’t control what they think they can (and they always presume *yes* to the normative question of should we control). I think the democrats, by and large, confuse the United States allies’ enthusiasm for their leadership as a sign they are smart in the ways of foreign affairs. US allies want America to agree with them on all issues of foreign affairs and also suffer a primary burden of the consequences (or implications) of that policy. I’d like a foreign leader who said “we will do what you want, and if it doesn’t work out, you have access to our enormous military and intelligence services….”

But telling friends what they want to hear all the time isn’t friendship. All the pants pissing US allies did about possible NATO withdraw resulted in Trump getting closer was many presidents before him had “requested” to no avail—that NATO members would spend on defense what the NATO treaty obligated them to spend. Tell me, if NATO stronger or weaker for this? Is that a guy who doesn’t get diplomacy, or is it a guy who gets it exactly?

[Per]

Tulsi Gabbard as head of national intelligence is a problem. A lot of people suspect her of being a Russian asset, based on the amount of Russian propaganda she has helped spread, and several European countries now have concerns over whether they should continue to share intelligence with the USA.

The suspiscion itself can hurt the coperation between the USA and its European allies, whether it is true or not, so it would have been better if Trump had appointed someone who was more widely respected. But I guess he has never understood the intricacies of diplomacy.

I think the careerists at State have a harder time with the intricacies of diplomacy than Trump. I think they believe they are the masters of the universe (see Victoria Nuland), yet they can’t control what they think they can (and they always presume *yes* to the normative question of should we control). I think the democrats, by and large, confuse the United States allies’ enthusiasm for their leadership as a sign they are smart in the ways of foreign affairs. US allies want America to agree with them on all issues of foreign affairs and also suffer a primary burden of the consequences (or implications) of that policy. I’d like a foreign leader who said “we will do what you want, and if it doesn’t work out, you have access to our enormous military and intelligence services….”

But telling friends what they want to hear all the time isn’t friendship. All the pants pissing US allies did about possible NATO withdraw resulted in Trump getting closer was many presidents before him had “requested” to no avail—that NATO members would spend on defense what the NATO treaty obligated them to spend. Tell me, if NATO stronger or weaker for this? Is that a guy who doesn’t get diplomacy, or is it a guy who gets it exactly?

Last time Trump was in charge he undermined NATO by suggesting the US might not defend another member nation if they were attacked. The whole purpose of a military alliance is to convince the other side that if you mess with one of us, you mess with all of us. To publicly state you may not be on board with that increases the risk of attack on members that are seen as weaker and less central to the organisation.

And yes, pretty much all European nations today spend more than 2% of their GDP on their military, Canada is one of the few NATO members who do not, but that's not because of Trump. It is because of the Russian war on Ukraine.

Foolishly most of us thought that the breakup of the Soviet Union meant there was no military threat in the region any longer. Swedish (and other European) companies started investing in Russia and the general idea was that they were going to become a normal neighbour that you do trade with and cooperate in various ways. Sweden cut its military spending in half, got rid of mandatory military service and closed more than half of our regiments.

When Putin came to power there wasn't any clear signs that he was about to reverse the democratic reforms of Gorbachev and Yeltsin, but gradually he started doing just that. Freedom of the press, independent TV stations, etc, is all gone. Political opponents get murdered, thrown in jail or both. There is an unproportional amount of Russians falling out of windows. Often after having expressed opinions that do not allign with the current regime.

We should have reacted when he invaded Georgia in 2008, but Georgia is far away and no one really knew much about Georgian politics.
We should definitely have reacted much more forcefully when he invaded Crimea and created militias and puppet regimes in Donbass in 2014.
Unfortunately most of us didn't. We protested, and passed some embargoes, but we did nothing to help Ukraine defend its territorial integrity.

Then the full scale war started in 2022, and this is when we finally realized that everything Putin has been saying about wanting to reverse the breakup of the Soviet Union and the Warszaw Pact was true. Most people thought it was just posturing meant for the domestic audience. Russia returning to its history of ruthless expansionist imperialism is very bad news for all of its neighbours. THIS is why Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia and Finland are spending as much as they do. They know that once Putin is done in Ukraine, it's their turn.

It's also why Finland and Sweden, that have a long history of neutrality (more than 200 years in Sweden's case), decided to join NATO.

We are now rebuilding the regiments we disbanded in the 1990's, increasing purchases of equipment and have reinstated mandatory military service. And companies that had started business ventures in Russia now have their assets seized. Both IKEA and Volvo are among those that have lost property there. https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2023/07/ ... tes-a81891

https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014 ... 024-en.pdf

You can pretty much see that military spending is directly correlated to proximity to Russia. Spain and Portugal don't care. Nor Luxembourg. Or Canada.

[Per]

We’re bio lab concerns in Ukraine debunked?

Yes. By multiple sources. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine_b ... acy_theory

There are labs in Ukraine that do research on eg cholera and anthrax, as these diseases are endemic to the region and it makes sense to prepare for fighting the outbreaks that naturally occur.

The claim that Ukraine would be creating biological weapons is also ludicrous. It does not make sense to prepare for biological warfare against a bordering country, as that would almost certainly mean the disease you spread there will also affect your own country.

It is a claim just as crazy as when Russia accuses Zelensky of being a nazi who wants to kill all Russian speaking Ukrainians.
The man is a Russian speaking Ukrainian Jew. How much self hatred could a man have?
It's all bullshit. The "plight of Russians in Ukraine" is the same old argument Hitler used when attacking Czechoslovakia and Poland. There were German minorities there that were being oppressed.

Also, the idea that Ukraine would initiate a war against Russia is just as ludicrous. It's a much smaller country with a much smaller army. The only threat that Ukraine posed to Russia was that by joining the EU their standard of living would soon reach Polish levels. At the breakup of the Soviet Union the GDP per capita of Russia, Ukraine and Poland was roughly the same. Today Poland's GDP per capita is roughly twice that of Russia, and the same goes for Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania and all other former communist countries that have joined the EU. Ukraine and Belarus, that are still not members of the EU, are poorer than Russia, mainly because of Russia's oil. Putin wants to keep it this way.

If Ukraine were to join the EU, it would soon be as prosperous as the other former Soviet states and allies that have joined. That would be really bad news for Putin, considering that large part of the Ukrainian population is Russian speaking and has relatives in Russia. It has been bad enough that Ukraine has had democracy and free speech. If they also had a much higher living standard, people would start questioning Putin's regime. Thus it was imperative for him to sabotage the Ukrainian journey toward becoming part of the European family.
(for reference, the GDP/capita for the USA is roughly USD 87K and for Canada USD 54K)

Many many many things have been debunked by the “intelligence community” (and its propagandists at Time magazine and other news outlets with deep sources in the intelligence community) that turned out to be true or where the evidence is much more rightly categorized as inconclusive. (E.g., Covid leak, Nordstream) I don’t know enough about the biolab to have an opinion on that particular theory, I just know the intelligence community runs a propaganda machine here and abroad (as well as gathers intelligence), and that propaganda’s organizing value is not truth, but the advancement of the intelligence community’s interests—interests that sometimes appear to deviate from the United States’ interests as established by the President and sometimes reflect the foreign policy interests established by the President (see weapons of mass destruction….)

Yes. Sure. You may remember that I see things from a Swedish perspective. We have always known that you cannot trust the CIA more than you can trust the KGB. We never believed in the lies about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. The UN weapons inspectors that were on the ground in Iraq confirmed repeatedly that there was no such thing and that Saddam Hussein was complying with the rules that had been agreed upon. Likewise neither Germany nor France believed this bullshit, which is why very few European nations supported the illegal invasion of Iraq that happened under George W Bush.
We also fully supported Vietnam when they were attacked by the USA and took in scores of American draft dodgers (though afaik Trump was not one of those). We also took in political refugees from the US sponsored coupe in Chile. We are not an American puppet.

Joining NATO was a move that was made out of necessity, as the Russian threat has increased, and we do not trust that we have time to rearm before they come after us. We used to have a disproportionally strong army, just as the Finns still do. We are rearming, but joining NATO also gets us some added security while we beef up our armed forces again.

But we also know that you cannot trust the NKVD/KGB/GRU/FSB/SVR. The Russians are constantly spewing propaganda. They still maintain that in 1939 Poland attacked them. Not the other way around.

Tulsi Gabbard has been picking up and spreading a lot of Russian propaganda. Both about Syria and Ukraine.
That is why we do not trust her. Not because of anything that Hillary has said or done.

It may turn out that she does a great job in her new position, but a lot of European defence and intelligence spokespeople are a bit sceptical, seeing as she has a history of spreading Russian disinformation.

[UWSaint]

Per, you can’t paraphrase part of trump’s position. His threat to not abide by NATO obligations was his way to get countries close to that 2%. That’s the whole point of the statement — to make it clear to allies that if they want the benefit of the bargain, if they want the US to perform its obligations, they must perform theirs. And it worked. And the result is a stronger NATO and a greater defense against Russian aggression. That’s why he knows more about diplomacy than you give him credit for. In spite of themselves, the Europeans are better equipped today for the Trump threat.

I don’t disagree with all that you’ve said in the two long posts, but I don’t have time to go point by point on where agreements and disagreements are. On the bigger picture, the fact is the skepticism you have towards American intelligence (which you have toward Russian intelligence and I presume all intelligence agencies) should make you skeptical of claims of disinformation/malinformation/debunked(!) that eminate from those very same intel sources either directly or by manipulation of the media that is their tradecraft. I am not saying every conspiracy theory is true (things like Zelenskyy is a nazi or Ukraine invaded Russia) are silly and wrong. And I am not making any bio lab claims in particular, I just know that as this “disinformation” language has been introduced, it wielded by those offering disinformation as much as those offering truth.

And it takes on a life of its own. It is “disinformation” and “Russian propaganda” to believe that the west’s involvement with “picking” Ukrainian leadership (before the war) and setting Ukraine on a path to NATO membership was a causal factor in the war. Really? It doesn’t “justify” Russia’s invasion (an unjust war) to acknowledge that Russia would prefer a buffer to NATO and may take actions to secure that. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist or a Russian dupe to conclude that Russia wants of Ukraine what it has with Belarus (a puppet state that acts in Russian interests more or less) but that the west wants of Ukraine the same thing, a state that can be incorporated into the EU and possibly NATO, and who will act in the west’s collective interests. Even if these views are what the Russians want us to believe, they may also be true or have some truth to them. It doesn’t justify the invasion, and yet in a counterfactual world, if Ukraine’s NATO potential membership was a contributing cause to Russia’s decision to invade, would the west have given that up? Some will say “no” because it’s inevitable that Russia invades. And that’s a fair enough position. But we just as we don’t take countries just on their word, we always have the opportunity to make it in that countries interest to keep their word.

And all of that it independent of the question of the intelligence community’s use of its tradecraft to influence policy and spy on Americans….

[Topper]

So NATO expansion to the Ukraine would poke the Bear. Exactly what Gabbard was saying.

Is her meeting with Assad any different than Congressmen and Senators doing other foreign junkets to meet leaders and discuss issues? Is keeping dialogue open with foes any different than Trump's foreign policy with Korea, Russia and China.

It seems odd that the greatest criticism of Tulsi comes from Hilary and Wasserman Schultz. Tulsi was a Sanders supporter, Wasserman Schultz was instrumental in feeding the Hilary campaign debate question to marginalize Bernie and exclude him from being the Democratic nominee in favour of Clinton. Tulsi was Vice Chair of the Democratic Party at the time, Wasserman Shultz and Donna Brazile, also guilty in the DNC debate scandal, were the DNC Chairmen in that period. Donna Brazile has parlayed her DNC scandal into a role with ABC News.