Biden lied. Imagine that ...
-
wrote on 1 Apr 2025, 11:47 last edited by
And not an 89th ticky-tacky lie, either ...
-
wrote on 1 Apr 2025, 16:04 last edited by
It's a testament to the power of rhetoric that the threat of nuclear war - in a discussion about a proxy war between the world's two greatest nuclear powers - was never on the table in the mainstream discussion. It's all about what's morally just. When practical risks were considered, they began and ended with Russia continuing through all of Europe if they were "handed Ukraine".
-
wrote on 1 Apr 2025, 16:13 last edited by
Without that threat of nuclear war, would there be this assumption that Nato can't expand? Would it be common wisdom that America shouldn't commit soldiers to Ukraine? I don't think so. Yet that one big thing, forcing so many huge decisions, is barely even discussed. It doesn't fit easily into a pros and cons rhetorical discussion fit for the masses or any mass media, but obviously it lurks as a very real consideration.
-
wrote on 1 Apr 2025, 17:02 last edited by
Matt Taibbi is a tool.
I read that here.
-
Matt Taibbi is a tool.
I read that here.
wrote on 1 Apr 2025, 17:25 last edited by@Deep-Fakes said in Biden lied. Imagine that ...:
Matt Taibbi is a tool.
I read that here.
Another victim of the reputation grinder.
-
Matt Taibbi is a tool.
I read that here.
wrote on 1 Apr 2025, 21:00 last edited by@Deep-Fakes said in Biden lied. Imagine that ...:
Matt Taibbi is a tool.
I read that here.
I'm sure it was quoted from a NYT piece.🥱
-
It's a testament to the power of rhetoric that the threat of nuclear war - in a discussion about a proxy war between the world's two greatest nuclear powers - was never on the table in the mainstream discussion. It's all about what's morally just. When practical risks were considered, they began and ended with Russia continuing through all of Europe if they were "handed Ukraine".
wrote on 1 Apr 2025, 21:41 last edited by Renauda 4 Jan 2025, 22:42@Horace said in Biden lied. Imagine that ...:
It's a testament to the power of rhetoric that the threat of nuclear war - in a discussion about a proxy war between the world's two greatest nuclear powers - was never on the table in the mainstream discussion. It's all about what's morally just. When practical risks were considered, they began and ended with Russia continuing through all of Europe if they were "handed Ukraine".
US has been doing for Ukraine exactly what the Soviets did for the North Vietnamese and Viet Cong during the war in Vietnam. The extent of direct Soviet involvement too was treated as a big secret - although poorly kept and known to anyone in the West who was willing to dig around military and foreign policy academic periodicals, right up until the USSR was dissolved.
The NYT article really exposes nothing. The Trump camp loves it because it shoe horns nicely into the narrative of its own parallel reality.
The coordinated effort that led to the sinking of the Moskva is no revelation. I even sat in in an online Atlantic Council panel discussion that was chaired by Gen (ret.) Philip Breedlove, shortly after the ship was sunk in which the coordinated effort was discussed in detail. The NYT team and Taibbi, of all people, should know that very well. If they did not know - and I find that hard to believe - they are guilty of sloppy thinking derived from poor journalistic integrity. But we knew that along.
-
@Horace said in Biden lied. Imagine that ...:
It's a testament to the power of rhetoric that the threat of nuclear war - in a discussion about a proxy war between the world's two greatest nuclear powers - was never on the table in the mainstream discussion. It's all about what's morally just. When practical risks were considered, they began and ended with Russia continuing through all of Europe if they were "handed Ukraine".
US has been doing for Ukraine exactly what the Soviets did for the North Vietnamese and Viet Cong during the war in Vietnam. The extent of direct Soviet involvement too was treated as a big secret - although poorly kept and known to anyone in the West who was willing to dig around military and foreign policy academic periodicals, right up until the USSR was dissolved.
The NYT article really exposes nothing. The Trump camp loves it because it shoe horns nicely into the narrative of its own parallel reality.
The coordinated effort that led to the sinking of the Moskva is no revelation. I even sat in in an online Atlantic Council panel discussion that was chaired by Gen (ret.) Philip Breedlove, shortly after the ship was sunk in which the coordinated effort was discussed in detail. The NYT team and Taibbi, of all people, should know that very well. If they did not know - and I find that hard to believe - they are guilty of sloppy thinking derived from poor journalistic integrity. But we knew that along.
-
wrote on 1 Apr 2025, 21:59 last edited by Jolly 4 Jan 2025, 21:59
MATT TAIBBI
MAR 31, 2025A new expose reveals years of official lies about the U.S., NATO, and Ukraine
From “The Secret History of the War in Ukraine” in the New York Times:At a hastily arranged meeting on the Polish border, General Zaluzhny admitted to Generals Cavoli and Aguto that the Ukrainians had in fact decided to mount assaults in three directions at once.
“That’s not the plan!” General Cavoli cried…
Fifteen months into the war, it had all come to this tipping point.
“We should have walked away,” said a senior American official.
But they would not.
When Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky visited the White House nearly a month ago, the New York Times packed its pages with stories denouncing Donald Trump and J.D. Vance for abandoning Ukraine, and the impolitic “dressing down” of a friendly foreign leader. The Times like most Western news outlets for years suggested that anything short of a full-throated expression of support for war was a betrayal of the “democratic world order” that would lead to instant battlefield deaths.
Now that the war appears lost, and newspapers abroad (conspicuously, not here) are full of news about an apparent bombing of Vladimir Putin’s motorcade, and the future of NATO hangs by a thread, the Times has run a 13,000-word “Secret History” that shows the same U.S. officials who denounced Trump and American voters for saying it out loud long ago concluded that they, too, should probably “walk away.”
The piece is also an extraordinarily comprehensive betrayal of Zelensky and Ukraine, exponentially worse than the “dressing down” by Trump. Authored by longtime veteran of controversial intel pieces Adam Entous, it’s sourced to 300 American and European officials who seem to be responding to their apparent sidelining via a shameless tantrum, exhibiting behavior that in the field would get military men shot. Not only do they play kiss and tell with a trove of operational secrets, they use the Times to deflect blame from their own failures onto erstwhile Slavic partners, cast as ignorant savages who snatched defeat from the jaws of America-designed victory. It’s as morally abhorrent a piece of ass-covering ever as I’ve seen in print, and that somehow is not its worst quality.
The people who quarterbacked the NATO side of the Ukraine war are so pleased with themselves, they can’t keep from boasting about things that will make the average American want to pitchfork the lot of them. Entous describes a tale told “through a secret keyhole” that reveals how America was “woven into the war far more intimately and broadly than previously understood.” (Translation: it was hidden from us.) Sources not only make it clear that the public was lied to on a continuous basis from the outset of the conflict, but they describe how we were lied to, apparently thinking the methods clever. Some are small semantic gambits the idiots wrongly believe exculpated their actions, but the main revelation involves one gigantic, inexcusable deception. From Joe Biden down, they all lied about the risk of World War III.
They risked our lives and our children’s lives, knowingly, repeatedly, and for the worst possible reason: politics. Afraid to admit a mistake, they planned individual excuses while letting bureaucratic inertia expand the conflict. Worse, as was guessed at on this site late last year, the Biden administration after last November’s election increased the risk of global conflict by “expanding the ops box to allow ATACMS and British Storm Shadow strikes into Russia,” in order to “shore up his Ukraine project.” If you check this “secret history” against contemporaneous statements of American and European leaders, you’ll find the scale of the lies beyond comprehension. Heads need to roll for this:
-
MATT TAIBBI
MAR 31, 2025A new expose reveals years of official lies about the U.S., NATO, and Ukraine
From “The Secret History of the War in Ukraine” in the New York Times:At a hastily arranged meeting on the Polish border, General Zaluzhny admitted to Generals Cavoli and Aguto that the Ukrainians had in fact decided to mount assaults in three directions at once.
“That’s not the plan!” General Cavoli cried…
Fifteen months into the war, it had all come to this tipping point.
“We should have walked away,” said a senior American official.
But they would not.
When Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky visited the White House nearly a month ago, the New York Times packed its pages with stories denouncing Donald Trump and J.D. Vance for abandoning Ukraine, and the impolitic “dressing down” of a friendly foreign leader. The Times like most Western news outlets for years suggested that anything short of a full-throated expression of support for war was a betrayal of the “democratic world order” that would lead to instant battlefield deaths.
Now that the war appears lost, and newspapers abroad (conspicuously, not here) are full of news about an apparent bombing of Vladimir Putin’s motorcade, and the future of NATO hangs by a thread, the Times has run a 13,000-word “Secret History” that shows the same U.S. officials who denounced Trump and American voters for saying it out loud long ago concluded that they, too, should probably “walk away.”
The piece is also an extraordinarily comprehensive betrayal of Zelensky and Ukraine, exponentially worse than the “dressing down” by Trump. Authored by longtime veteran of controversial intel pieces Adam Entous, it’s sourced to 300 American and European officials who seem to be responding to their apparent sidelining via a shameless tantrum, exhibiting behavior that in the field would get military men shot. Not only do they play kiss and tell with a trove of operational secrets, they use the Times to deflect blame from their own failures onto erstwhile Slavic partners, cast as ignorant savages who snatched defeat from the jaws of America-designed victory. It’s as morally abhorrent a piece of ass-covering ever as I’ve seen in print, and that somehow is not its worst quality.
The people who quarterbacked the NATO side of the Ukraine war are so pleased with themselves, they can’t keep from boasting about things that will make the average American want to pitchfork the lot of them. Entous describes a tale told “through a secret keyhole” that reveals how America was “woven into the war far more intimately and broadly than previously understood.” (Translation: it was hidden from us.) Sources not only make it clear that the public was lied to on a continuous basis from the outset of the conflict, but they describe how we were lied to, apparently thinking the methods clever. Some are small semantic gambits the idiots wrongly believe exculpated their actions, but the main revelation involves one gigantic, inexcusable deception. From Joe Biden down, they all lied about the risk of World War III.
They risked our lives and our children’s lives, knowingly, repeatedly, and for the worst possible reason: politics. Afraid to admit a mistake, they planned individual excuses while letting bureaucratic inertia expand the conflict. Worse, as was guessed at on this site late last year, the Biden administration after last November’s election increased the risk of global conflict by “expanding the ops box to allow ATACMS and British Storm Shadow strikes into Russia,” in order to “shore up his Ukraine project.” If you check this “secret history” against contemporaneous statements of American and European leaders, you’ll find the scale of the lies beyond comprehension. Heads need to roll for this:
-
Matt Taibbi is a tool.
I read that here.
wrote on 2 Apr 2025, 05:25 last edited by@Deep-Fakes said in Biden lied. Imagine that ...:
Matt Taibbi is a tool.
I read that here.
Welcome back.
-
wrote on 2 Apr 2025, 21:00 last edited by
@Deep-Fakes jon thinks you're GeorgeK, who used to write that phrase.
-
wrote on 2 Apr 2025, 21:19 last edited by
@Horace said in Biden lied. Imagine that ...:
@Deep-Fakes jon thinks you're GeorgeK, who used to write that phrase.
I'm pretty sure it's Tom Cruise.
