Thursday, December 06, 2018

Hitting each other on the head with bricks

"Trump Tower Moscow: A CIA-Backed Provocation Against Putin, Trump – Economist".  "Is This It?: A Trump-Hater’s Guide to Mueller Skepticism" (Frank):
"We see the familiar cycle of hype, and there’s no use fighting it, but, once heart rates have slowed, the same old question remains: so what? Some of the news, such as a Guardian story that Manafort met three times with Julian Assange, seems to be based on nothing at all. But even the solid news turns out to be generally non-earth-shattering. As the journalist Aaron Maté has been pointing out, we already knew the timeline of Cohen’s Moscow efforts, because BuzzFeed had already detailed them in May, painting a picture of a bumbling duo getting high on their own supply. (As for the latest revelations, did Sater and Cohen really think a president of Russia would move into a free $50 million penthouse provided by a U.S. presidential candidate? You have to wonder if they were hitting each other on the head with bricks.)"
and:
"It is sleazy, but not criminal, to pursue a business deal while you’re running for president. Mueller has nailed people for trying to prevaricate about their sleaze, so we already have a couple of guilty pleas over perjury, with more believed to be on the way. But the purpose of the investigation was to address suspicions of underlying conspiracy—that is, a plan by Trump staffers to get Russian help on a criminal effort. Despite countless man-hours of digging, this conspiracy theory, the one that’s been paying the bills at Maddow for a couple of years now, has come no closer to being borne out. (Or, as the true believers would say, at least not yet.)"
"Why did CNN fire a pro-Palestinian commentator?" (West).  Strangely cucked, including a 100% buy-in to the Khazar narrative that their insane and ultra-violent anti-gentilism is rooted in their understandable fears.  Of course, the real question is how in the hell did CNN have a pro-Palestinian commentator.

Speaking of cucked:  "Is Trump’s Iran policy falling apart?" (Parsi) (utterly ridiculous passages in red):
"Even if the Republicans end up siding with Trump on continuing relations with Saudi Arabia on the current terms, the Democrats are unlikely to simply allow the relationship to return to business-as-usual.

This is partly because the Saudi-U.S. relationship embodies everything progressives oppose: A cozy relationship with a brutal authoritarian ruler driven by the greed of arms manufacturers, all while the U.S. is complicit in a Saudi-engineered famine in Yemen and the House of Saud’s human rights and women’s rights abuses.

Plus, Saudi has already annoyed Trump by cutting its oil production, arguably undermining its sole role in Trump’s Iran strategy.

Second, Israel has played a critical behind-the-scenes role in Trump’s Iran policy. Netanyahu, in particular, has been a central conduit for the relationship between Salman and Trump’s son-in-law and advisor Jared Kushner, which in turn helped pave the way for the close coordination between Saudi Arabia and Israel, and for the U.S. to turn against Iran."
So the Clintons didn't take all that money from the Saudis, and Bibi is just a go-between! You have to laugh!  Still, he's right - the whole thing was ill-conceived and fell apart even before it started, largely because Trump didn't have the courage of the convictions of the Khazars who bribe him

"Hello" (Aangirfan).  The bizarre idea of allowing just anybody to write their thoughts and throw them out there for anybody to see isn't working out well, and in a few years will no doubt be seen as an historical anomaly that went on for a decade or so, before it was wisely wound up.
blog comments powered by Disqus