Former US intelligence analysts: CIA allegations of Russian email hacking are baseless
paulsurovell said:The one good thing that Trump has said he'd do -- improve relations with Russia -- is the one thing that the Democrats are focusing their energy on opposing.
Good thing? Depends how he does it, of course. Should we recognize Putin's Crimea annexation? Should we kick the Baltics out of NATO? These are the things Putin really wants. Putin wants what Russian imperialists have always wanted - total dominance of Europe. Not occupation or annexation, but geopolitical dominance.
paulsurovell said:
nohero said:
All of this "How dare you accuse the Russians" stuff is serving as a distraction from the very disturbing personnel and policy initiatives of our President-elect.
The only appointment that I've heard the Democrats say they will oppose is Tillerson, because he seems friendly to Russia. I haven't heard about any Democratic plans to oppose Pompeo, Pruitt, Perry, DeVos, Sessions, etc. Have you?
The one good thing that Trump has said he'd do -- improve relations with Russia -- is the one thing that the Democrats are focusing their energy on opposing.
Paul - do you understand why people are opposed to being friendly with Putin? What about Putin makes you think he'll be eager to do anything in US interests? What has he done that gives you any hope. Has Trump been critical with Putin on anything?
paulsurovell said:
nohero said:
All of this "How dare you accuse the Russians" stuff is serving as a distraction from the very disturbing personnel and policy initiatives of our President-elect.
The only appointment that I've heard the Democrats say they will oppose is Tillerson, because he seems friendly to Russia. I haven't heard about any Democratic plans to oppose Pompeo, Pruitt, Perry, DeVos, Sessions, etc. Have you?
The one good thing that Trump has said he'd do -- improve relations with Russia -- is the one thing that the Democrats are focusing their energy on opposing.
With regard to grounds for actual opposition, Mr. Tillerson appears to have significant business dealings in Russia via an offshore company. I don't know why anyone would contest that the facts about that arrangement should be looked at, and his activities potentially disqualifying depending on what they are.
As for the others named - with the GOP in control of the Senate, the fact that a particular nominee might hold odd views for someone who will be in charge of a department (as in, against that department's mission, for example) probably isn't enough to disqualify. That doesn't mean that each nominee shouldn't be questioned about his or her views and intentions with respect to the office for which they are seeking confirmation. There should be a public airing of views and intentions about civil rights, public education, the extent of CIA domestic spying, etc.
And as already noted, "improve relations with Russia" shouldn't involve a strategy that resembles letting your toddler wreck a toy store until he gets what he wants - so you can "improve relations with your child".
paulsurovell said:
nohero said:The only appointment that I've heard the Democrats say they will oppose is Tillerson, because he seems friendly to Russia. I haven't heard about any Democratic plans to oppose Pompeo, Pruitt, Perry, DeVos, Sessions, etc. Have you?
All of this "How dare you accuse the Russians" stuff is serving as a distraction from the very disturbing personnel and policy initiatives of our President-elect.
Also, it's not just Democratic politicians who are being distracted. You provided an example of Glenn Greenwald touting his television appearance on MSNBC, so he could argue against Russian involvement. Mr. Greenwald's work time, television face time, and bandwidth would be better used for other issues regarding the new Administration.
tjohn said:
paulsurovell said:
The one good thing that Trump has said he'd do -- improve relations with Russia -- is the one thing that the Democrats are focusing their energy on opposing.
Good thing? Depends how he does it, of course. Should we recognize Putin's Crimea annexation? Should we kick the Baltics out of NATO? These are the things Putin really wants. Putin wants what Russian imperialists have always wanted - total dominance of Europe. Not occupation or annexation, but geopolitical dominance.
If you look at the map of Europe over the last 25 years -- except for Crimea -- it's the US, not Russia that has expanded its influence, including its military assets. That's the context of the US-Russian relationship.
paulsurovell said:
If you look at the map of Europe over the last 25 years -- except for Crimea -- it's the US, not Russia that has expanded its influence, including its military assets. That's the context of the US-Russian relationship.
The Soviet Union dissolved in December of 1991 (25 years ago), and Soviet troops were no longer going to be suppressing independence movements in the former Soviet republics in Europe. So it does stand to reason (and is not surprising and logically follows) that Russia subsequently had less influence, and any country supporting the newly re-independent countries would correspondingly have more influence.
And Russian expansion in Ukraine is not limited to the annexation of Crimea, but includes influence and involvement in Eastern Ukraine.
nohero said:
paulsurovell said:
nohero said:The only appointment that I've heard the Democrats say they will oppose is Tillerson, because he seems friendly to Russia. I haven't heard about any Democratic plans to oppose Pompeo, Pruitt, Perry, DeVos, Sessions, etc. Have you?
All of this "How dare you accuse the Russians" stuff is serving as a distraction from the very disturbing personnel and policy initiatives of our President-elect.
Also, it's not just Democratic politicians who are being distracted. You provided an example of Glenn Greenwald touting his television appearance on MSNBC, so he could argue against Russian involvement. Mr. Greenwald's work time, television face time, and bandwidth would be better used for other issues regarding the new Administration.
Here are links to article in Greenwald's publication over the last 7 days. Most are related to the new administration and they are more substantive and tougher on Trump than the process-personality stories that the mainstream media dwells on.
https://theintercept.com/2016/12/22/apple-ceo-tim-cook-met-with-trump-to-engage-on-gigantic-corporate-tax-cut/
https://theintercept.com/2016/12/20/trumps-pick-for-interior-secretary-was-caught-in-pattern-of-fraud-at-seal-team-6/
https://theintercept.com/2016/12/20/exxonmobil-is-fighting-to-keep-its-dangerous-chemicals-in-childrens-toys/
https://theintercept.com/2016/12/21/officer-involved-reprise-2016/
https://theintercept.com/2016/12/19/ibm-employees-launch-petition-protesting-cooperation-with-donald-trump/
https://theintercept.com/2016/12/18/what-president-obama-should-have-said-at-his-last-press-conference/
https://theintercept.com/2016/12/19/factory-near-carrier-sends-jobs-to-mexico-but-trump-just-tweets/
https://theintercept.com/2016/12/15/apple-google-and-others-at-trump-tech-summit-have-stashed-560-billion-in-profits-overseas/
https://theintercept.com/2016/12/16/if-you-want-to-see-how-donald-trump-will-destroy-the-environment-read-this-legislative-roadmap/
https://theintercept.com/2016/12/15/if-donald-trump-is-so-upset-about-iraq-wmd-lies-why-is-he-hiring-john-bolton/
https://theintercept.com/2016/12/16/wells-fargo-is-on-a-losing-streak-but-still-has-some-trump-cards/
https://theintercept.com/2016/12/12/transition-adviser-peter-thiel-would-directly-profit-from-mass-deportations/
https://theintercept.com/2016/12/14/heres-the-public-evidence-russia-hacked-the-dnc-its-not-enough/
paulsurovell said:
Here are links to article in Greenwald's publication over the last 7 days. Most are related to the new administration and they are more substantive and tougher on Trump than the process-personality stories that the mainstream media dwells on.
https://theintercept.com/2016/12/22/apple-ceo-tim-cook-met-with-trump-to-engage-on-gigantic-corporate-tax-cut/
https://theintercept.com/2016/12/20/trumps-pick-for-interior-secretary-was-caught-in-pattern-of-fraud-at-seal-team-6/
https://theintercept.com/2016/12/20/exxonmobil-is-fighting-to-keep-its-dangerous-chemicals-in-childrens-toys/
https://theintercept.com/2016/12/21/officer-involved-reprise-2016/
https://theintercept.com/2016/12/19/ibm-employees-launch-petition-protesting-cooperation-with-donald-trump/
https://theintercept.com/2016/12/18/what-president-obama-should-have-said-at-his-last-press-conference/
https://theintercept.com/2016/12/19/factory-near-carrier-sends-jobs-to-mexico-but-trump-just-tweets/
https://theintercept.com/2016/12/15/apple-google-and-others-at-trump-tech-summit-have-stashed-560-billion-in-profits-overseas/
https://theintercept.com/2016/12/16/if-you-want-to-see-how-donald-trump-will-destroy-the-environment-read-this-legislative-roadmap/
https://theintercept.com/2016/12/15/if-donald-trump-is-so-upset-about-iraq-wmd-lies-why-is-he-hiring-john-bolton/
https://theintercept.com/2016/12/16/wells-fargo-is-on-a-losing-streak-but-still-has-some-trump-cards/
https://theintercept.com/2016/12/12/transition-adviser-peter-thiel-would-directly-profit-from-mass-deportations/
https://theintercept.com/2016/12/14/heres-the-public-evidence-russia-hacked-the-dnc-its-not-enough/
Good, he should keep up his work. Not going to comment on the "more substantive and tougher" assertion, since that is both a matter of opinion and would require doing a lot of surveying of news sources.
So, I'll stick with, "Good, he should keep up his work."
nohero said:
paulsurovell said:The Soviet Union dissolved in December of 1991 (25 years ago), and Soviet troops were no longer going to be suppressing independence movements in the former Soviet republics in Europe. So it does stand to reason (and is not surprising and logically follows) that Russia subsequently had less influence, and any country supporting the newly re-independent countries would correspondingly have more influence.
If you look at the map of Europe over the last 25 years -- except for Crimea -- it's the US, not Russia that has expanded its influence, including its military assets. That's the context of the US-Russian relationship.
And Russian expansion in Ukraine is not limited to the annexation of Crimea, but includes influence and involvement in Eastern Ukraine.
However, the Soviets agreed to withdraw from East Germany in part because the US committed that NATO would not move eastward toward Russia.
After speaking with many of those involved and examining previously
classified British and German documents in detail, SPIEGEL has concluded
that there was no doubt that the West did everything it could to give
the Soviets the impression that NATO membership was out of the question
for countries like Poland, Hungary or Czechoslovakia.
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-shifrinson-russia-us-nato-deal--20160530-snap-story.html
Russia's got a point: The U.S. broke a NATO promise
by Joshua R. Itzkowitz Shifrinson, International security fellow at
Dartmouth College and assistant professor at the Bush School of
Government, Texas A&M University
Moscow solidified its hold on Crimea in April, outlawing the
Tatar legislature that had opposed Russia’s annexation of the region
since 2014. Together with Russian military provocations against NATO forces in and around the Baltic, this move seems to validate the observations of Western analysts who argue that under Vladimir Putin, an increasingly aggressive Russia is determined to dominate its neighbors and menace Europe.
Leaders in Moscow, however, tell a different story. For them, Russia is the
aggrieved party. They claim the United States has failed to uphold a
promise that NATO would not expand into Eastern Europe, a deal made
during the 1990 negotiations between the West and the Soviet Union over
German unification. In this view, Russia is being forced to forestall
NATO’s eastward march as a matter of self-defense.
The West has vigorously protested that no such deal was
ever struck. However, hundreds of memos, meeting minutes and transcripts
from U.S. archives indicate otherwise. [ . . . ]
nohero said:
paulsurovell said:
nohero said:
All of this "How dare you accuse the Russians" stuff is serving as a distraction from the very disturbing personnel and policy initiatives of our President-elect.
The only appointment that I've heard the Democrats say they will oppose is Tillerson, because he seems friendly to Russia. I haven't heard about any Democratic plans to oppose Pompeo, Pruitt, Perry, DeVos, Sessions, etc. Have you?
The one good thing that Trump has said he'd do -- improve relations with Russia -- is the one thing that the Democrats are focusing their energy on opposing.
With regard to grounds for actual opposition, Mr. Tillerson appears to have significant business dealings in Russia via an offshore company. I don't know why anyone would contest that the facts about that arrangement should be looked at, and his activities potentially disqualifying depending on what they are.
As for the others named - with the GOP in control of the Senate, the fact that a particular nominee might hold odd views for someone who will be in charge of a department (as in, against that department's mission, for example) probably isn't enough to disqualify. That doesn't mean that each nominee shouldn't be questioned about his or her views and intentions with respect to the office for which they are seeking confirmation. There should be a public airing of views and intentions about civil rights, public education, the extent of CIA domestic spying, etc.
And as already noted, "improve relations with Russia" shouldn't involve a strategy that resembles letting your toddler wreck a toy store until he gets what he wants - so you can "improve relations with your child".
The views of the Trump appointees I named are not "odd," they are pernicious. And the fact that you use the term "odd" reflects the benign treatment they have received in the media.
Only Tillerson -- who is well-positioned to improve relations with Russia and who may represent a moderating influence on Trump in Iran -- is being threatened with rejection by the Democrats and their neocon allies, McCain and Graham.
Exxon's interest in drilling in the Russian arctic is of great concern, but the Democrats are giving Tillerson a pass on that. That's something that's really "odd."
paulsurovell said:
However, the Soviets agreed to withdraw from East Germany in part because the US committed that NATO would not move eastward toward Russia.
So the headline should read, "Russian Fans of Defunct Dictatorship Object That When Defunct Dictatorship Withdrew Occupation Forces From Independent Nations, Possibility of Threatening Subsequent Invasion Was Impaired".
paulsurovell said:
If you look at the map of Europe over the last 25 years -- except for Crimea -- it's the US, not Russia that has expanded its influence, including its military assets. That's the context of the US-Russian relationship.
How about Putin's involvement in Georgia? Are you interested in Putin or the US expanding their influence and military assets?
I guess threatening to expand the nuclear capabilities of the United States comes under "improve relations with Russia".
"The United States must greatly strengthen and expand its nuclear capability until such time as the world comes to its senses regarding nukes"
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/811977223326625792
[Edited to add] It gets better in the comments:
"@SherryMcKinsey @Mikilobelite @tonyposnanski. Great poll! 100% of people think I should build more nukes! MAGA!"
https://twitter.com/reaIDonaIdTfump/status/811988302509277186
jamie said:
Paul - do you understand why people are opposed to being friendly with Putin? What about Putin makes you think he'll be eager to do anything in US interests? What has he done that gives you any hope. Has Trump been critical with Putin on anything?
Jamie,
I think you're confusing "not liking Putin" with "wanting to have improved relations with Putin."
A recent Bloomberg poll found that despite a 64% unfavorable rating among Americans, 62% expect US relations to improve with Russia.
As I posted earlier, the US "stands united with Russia" in the fight against terrorism, we collaborated on the Paris climate change agreement as well as the Iran nuclear deal, and last but not least, we are both four minutes away from mutual destruction.
In light of the above, I think it's irrational to be against improving relations with Russia.
With regard to Crimea, Trump is correct that the majority want to be with Russia. It's also true that the people in eastern Ukraine want to be with Russia. That doesn't justify annexation of either, but it does speak to the fact that Ukraine is not black and white, good and bad. For example, the first act of new Ukraine parliament was to ban Russian as the second official language. That made a rebellion in eastern Ukraine inevitable.
But the good news is that the Ukrainian government has agreed to a program of decentralization that would provide some autonomy for Russian-speaking eastern Ukraine.
Columbia economist Jeffrey Sachs has written a balanced view of the Ukraine crisis and how to resolve it. I highly recommend it.
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/russia-fsu/2014-03-04/new-post-soviet-playbook
nohero said:
I guess threatening to expand the nuclear capabilities of the United States comes under "improve relations with Russia".
"The United States must greatly strengthen and expand its nuclear capability until such time as the world comes to its senses regarding nukes"
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/811977223326625792
[Edited to add] It gets better in the comments:
"@SherryMcKinsey @Mikilobelite @tonyposnanski. Great poll! 100% of people think I should build more nukes! MAGA!"
https://twitter.com/reaIDonaIdTfump/status/811988302509277186
You posted a fake Tweet.
With regard to Trump's call for expanding our nuclear arsenal, that is irrational and I oppose it. Perhaps it's early, but I haven't seen any criticism of Trump's nuclear statement from Democrats.
Look carefully at what you posted:
I'm sorry, but what's this thread about, again?
[Edited to add] I guess I would be concerned about random statements being issued by the new Commander in Chief, in short bursts, taking the place of reasonable discussion.
it's about a useful idiot quoting other useful idiots/russian agents in a sad effort to deflect a direct attack on American democracy and institutions by Russian GRU/FSB.
South_Mountaineer said:
I'm sorry, but what's this thread about, again?
[Edited to add] I guess I would be concerned about random statements being issued by the new Commander in Chief, in short bursts, taking the place of reasonable discussion.
I'm waiting for Paul to start posting in Russian, so his superiors know he's earning his pay.
dave said:
I'm waiting for Paul to start posting in Russian, so his superiors know he's earning his pay.
I'm not that high up. I report to Sean Hannity through messages I leave in hollowed-out pumpkins.
So he's criticizing the military buildup on the Ukraine border? Umm, because Putin has taken Crimea and came close to taking Eastern Ukraine and Russian military shot down a plane. And Putin did all of this because of US involvement?
Putin - a guys who got 146% of the vote in his election. Trump is really learning many of his lessons from Vlad.
jamie said:
So he's criticizing the military buildup on the Ukraine border? Umm, because Putin has taken Crimea and came close to taking Eastern Ukraine and Russian military shot down a plane. And Putin did all of this because of US involvement?
Putin - a guys who got 146% of the vote in his election. Trump is really learning many of his lessons from Vlad.
My questions for you are:
Do you advocate "getting tougher" with Putin and if so, how?
Or do you advocate seeking common ground to resolve differences as Jeffrey Sachs proposes?
Or do you have a third position?
Interesting article on the "love affair" between Putin and Netanyahu, despite Putin's alliances with Syria, Iran and Hezbollah. Could this provide Trump and Putin with the opportunity to broker a deal between Israel and it's enemies?
http://www.middleeasteye.net/columns/strange-love-affair-putin-and-netanyahu-1736252238
Reminder -- (as I posted a couple of years ago) Israel did not vote for the UN General Assembly resolution condemning Russia's takeover of Crimea in the UN General Assembly
paulsurovell said:
Interesting article on the "love affair" between Putin and Netanyahu, despite Putin's alliances with Syria, Iran and Hezbollah. Could this provide Trump and Putin with the opportunity to broker a deal between Israel and it's enemies?
In short, no. The opposing groups in the Middle East are nobody's puppets.
paulsurovell said:
Interesting article on the "love affair" between Putin and Netanyahu, despite Putin's alliances with Syria, Iran and Hezbollah. Could this provide Trump and Putin with the opportunity to broker a deal between Israel and it's enemies?
http://www.middleeasteye.net/columns/strange-love-affair-putin-and-netanyahu-1736252238
Reminder -- (as I posted a couple of years ago) Israel did not vote for the UN General Assembly resolution condemning Russia's takeover of Crimea in the UN General Assembly
You were highly critical of Israel abstaining from the UN resolution condemning Russia's takeover of Crimea. To you it was just another black mark against Israel.(My recollection is that the thread was a discussion about the Russian invasion of Crimea and you posted your comment about Israel.) Now you're arguing that Russia had good reason to invade and takeover Crimea because it is majority Russians. And you are now suggesting that the relationship between Putin and Netanyahu might be a good thing in brokering a deal between Israel and the Palestinians.
paulsurovell said:
The views of the Trump appointees I named are not "odd," they are pernicious. And the fact that you use the term "odd" reflects the benign treatment they have received in the media.
No, the fact that I use the term "odd" means that I wrote a post using the word "odd". I had in mind the fact that many of these people are very much opposed to the missions of the departments they will be in charge of.
I did not intend to exclude the use of any other word to describe them or their plans. So, what I wrote isn't evidence to support whatever point you want to push on this thread.
paulsurovell said:
You posted a fake Tweet.
With regard to Trump's call for expanding our nuclear arsenal, that is irrational and I oppose it. Perhaps it's early, but I haven't seen any criticism of Trump's nuclear statement from Democrats.
Not a "fake tweet" (since it was actually tweeted) but a mistakenly attributed one. I regret the error. I guess I need to be more attentive to how to "read" Twitter if our new Commander in Chief is going to be announcing policy via that method.
I also regret the error because it gives someone such as yourself an easy "out", to spend less time addressing the actual, albeit brief, statement made by 100% of our new Commander in Chief.
When you shift to criticizing the Democrats ("Perhaps it's early, but I haven't seen any criticism of Trump's nuclear statement from Democrats."), it is not just that it's early. Of course, I think that expecting "instant reaction" and criticizing its absence is not conducive to intelligent discussion. If there is some emergency, that's one thing, but "instant reaction" to every utterance should not be demanded, and we should all do our part not to encourage that.
But, in addition to "it's early", it's also very true that Trump's own people apparently spent the rest of the day and into the evening "explaining" what he meant. It's unfair to criticize the Democrats (or even to mention as if it was a valid point) if there's no "instant reaction" to something Trump's own people have to spend more time to interpret.
In this morning's NY Times, there's an "Interpreter" column about the potential actual meanings of the "tweet". It supports the point I was trying to make above, about having to figure out what the statement is about before expecting a response.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/12/22/world/americas/trump-nuclear-tweet.html
Maybe if our new Commander in Chief issued more complete, well-reasoned thoughts, one could then turn to the Democrats for a response. Until then, shifting the burden to the Democrats to respond to some 140 character burst just helps Trump and his partisans.
tjohn said:
paulsurovell said:
Interesting article on the "love affair" between Putin and Netanyahu, despite Putin's alliances with Syria, Iran and Hezbollah. Could this provide Trump and Putin with the opportunity to broker a deal between Israel and it's enemies?
In short, no. The opposing groups in the Middle East are nobody's puppets.
So Netanyahu who has a close relationship with Putin is not his puppet. And Iran and Hezbollah who are in alliances with Putin, and now Turkey, which is moving toward Putin are not his puppets.
Only Donald Trump is Putin's puppet.
We are moving into an alternative universe.
Employment Wanted
Latest Jobs
Employment Wanted
-
Yemaya Nurturing Doula Services
May 13, 2024 at 4:59pm
-
Math and writing tutoring, grades 4-12, all levels. Pub.School teaching exp.
May 13, 2024 at 2:32pm
-
May 11, 2024 at 5:03pm
-
May 11, 2024 at 9:52am
Help Wanted
-
MSF506 FT (55 hrs) Nanny for 2 (Sept Start)
May 14, 2024 at 10:54am
-
MF812 PT Afternoon Nanny for 2 (ASAP Start)
May 14, 2024 at 10:54am
-
Looking for help with House chores
May 13, 2024 at 7:22am
-
Driving Legal Nanny is needed in Paramus, NJ
May 10, 2024 at 12:22pm
-
FHF604 PT Nanny for 2 (Mid-June Start)
May 9, 2024 at 7:42pm
-
HF801 PT Nanny for 1 Infant (ASAP)
May 9, 2024 at 1:18pm
Lessons/Instruction
For Sale
-
REVO luggage $100
More info
Free Items
Advertisement
The only appointment that I've heard the Democrats say they will oppose is Tillerson, because he seems friendly to Russia. I haven't heard about any Democratic plans to oppose Pompeo, Pruitt, Perry, DeVos, Sessions, etc. Have you?
The one good thing that Trump has said he'd do -- improve relations with Russia -- is the one thing that the Democrats are focusing their energy on opposing.