WMDs were a deliberate lie by the Bush administration, not a failure of the media. It’s like what Putin is doing now, only in this case the Russian media are complicit.
They were wrong. But all data at the time supported this position. (Seriously, who would have thought Americans would elect a known con-man?)
Trump was (and is) a Russian asset.
The ex-major recalled: “For the KGB, it was a charm offensive. They had collected a lot of information on his personality so they knew who he was personally. The feeling was that he was extremely vulnerable intellectually, and psychologically, and he was prone to flattery.
“This is what they exploited. They played the game as if they were immensely impressed by his personality and believed this is the guy who should be the president of the United States one day: it is people like him who could change the world. They fed him these so-called active measures soundbites and it happened. So it was a big achievement for the KGB active measures at the time.”
Like the predictions of Clinton’s victory, media were merely reporting what the experts were saying. They reported correctly. It was the analysts who were wrong. You can’t blame the media.
Denying that Trump is a Russian agent is deliberate obfuscation. It’s like focusing on the word “collusion” when that wasn’t the exact accusation. It fools all the people I mentioned above who can’t tell fact from fiction, real from fake.
It’s a simple Faux news trick, and it amazes me that people are dense enough to fall for it.
Well, there was that time in his first year when he did the Presidential pardon of the Thanksgiving turkey. A comment in the thread about it was, “he genuinely seemed to be enjoying himself.”
Also it isn’t as if we aren’t skeptical of pro-Ukraine sources. In the MPSIMS Ukraine thread there are many cases where the posters acknowledge that a given report from the Ukraine may be biased. Example.
We recognize that Ukrainian and western sources may be biased, but Russian sources are guaranteed to be biased.
Putin has also said, VERY clearly, that he does not consider Ukraine a legitimate nation-state and that it’s part of “Greater Russia.” His motivation is very clear.
My quoted comment, referring to what Putin said, is likely due to Sweden and Finland not having been such major tactical invasion routes to Russia in the past. ( I may be wrong ) Statehood not being an issue. Also not sure how " VERY clearly " he stated it. Trying to find that speech without clipping.
