The Left has long benefited from the fact that all of its captured institutions can do dirty work on behalf of its politicians. Barack Obama didn’t have to engage in nasty propaganda because the media did it for him.
Trump has no such advantages. The only way the Left’s foibles make it to the ears of the masses is if he himself posts about them and exaggerates them so as to goad left-wing media into publishing his posts. This has often worked because audiences then see that Trump’s exaggerations are closer to reality than the Left’s narratives.
So yes, it’s ugly that the White House is calling out media lies itself. But will the public hear the truth if the White House doesn’t?
The claims that we are experiencing a color revolution sure seem to be playing out as if we are genuinely experiencing one. And since journalists and the media have lower public approval ratings than even does Congress, and for good reasons, it seems like some pushback is warranted. If they expect a defense from the public they might try being truthful and not engaging in political activism for a change.
Don’t you just love NBC commercial running now about how truthful and forthright they are as a news organization. That should be telling that they have to actually advertise that.
It's coming up on the 9 year anniversary of "Democracy Dies in Darkness". That's when I knew the media was toast.
For the reason that they were one of the last to put up a paywall, I read WaPo for many years leading up to 2015-2016. And I think that watching the paper over about 18 months leading up to "Democracy Dies in Darkness" is best compared to the face-melting scene in Raiders of the Lost Ark. Self-immolation.
Back in 2018 I was working as a contract programmer/data-analyst at a major media analysis firm. You've all heard of it.
The walls were plastered with TVs. Notably, the only station I never saw on a TV was Fox News. I'm not a Fox News booster but the absence of that station was conspicuous given that there were multiple sets showing ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC and CNN.
What particularly struck me was how I could walk from room to room and often not just hear the same story but the exact same wording coming from different stations.
The synchronicity was stunning. I specifically remember the time around the confirmation of Gina Haspel as CIA chief and how the phrase "Trump's controversial choice" was being parroted on every set.
It seemed completely overt and unhidden. I guess part of the strategy is the assumption that few people would notice the "scripting of the news".
“Controversial” and “divisive” are partisan bad words, and nothing more. Given an 80/20 issue where the media platform sides with the 20%, the 80% position will be described as “controversial” and “divisive”, and the 20% position never will be.
By 2018 the Twitter effect was overriding - the bubble that these folks lived in was then and and is now an online social media echo chamber, largely.
Seven years ago, at least people still had moderate exposure to those TV stations. Now, everyone's much more reliant on social media and info from phones. During the ICE protest/riots in LA earlier this year, people on social media earnestly protested images of burning police cars and Waymos as "fake news" when it was literally on local news stations every night for a week.
It doesn't mean anything anymore. George Galloway had a great line about this being the era of cross dressing in many senses: the "anti-war left" spends all its time now foaming at the mouth about the need to fight Putin to the last Ukrainian, the warmongering neocons now suddenly are concerned about illegal operations, and Trump who promised to end overseas entanglements is closing Venezuelan airspace and sending bunker busters into Iran.
Right? It's such a tough situation. Seems no-win. Every time I think, "Ugh; wish he hadn't said that", I remember just how stacked the deck is against him, like no other president- ever.
“is if he posts them himself and exaggerates them….” What a disturbed perspective. “Trumps exaggerations are closer to reality than the Lefts narratives.” Talk about someone without a grip on reality.
What is the war crime and what statute defines it as such? Be specific. Extraordinary claims require strong and precise evidence. You have offered none. I’m not disagreeing with you, nor am I agreeing. I just think if you’re going to make a condemnation, you should support it.
Geneva Convention (II) for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea (1949), Article 12, mandates that:
• Wounded, sick, and shipwrecked persons must be respected and protected in all circumstances.
• Any attempts upon their lives or violence to their persons shall be strictly prohibited. In particular, they shall not be murdered or exterminated.
• Customary international law extends this protection to all shipwrecked persons, whether civilian or military, as long as they refrain from any act of hostility. Once a person is in the water and injured or stranded after their vessel has been destroyed, they are considered "out of the fight" and are protected persons.
• Targeting and killing them while in this defenseless state is a war crime.
Two people were reportedly killed by order under these circumstances. If true, that is a war crime. Instead of taking this seriously and posting evidence that this was untrue, Hegseth put up an image parody of Franklin the Turtle killing drug smugglers.
So you’re believing the virtuous reporting of the Washington Post I see…that could be a problem with your argument. I’m skeptical because they rarely report accurately.
You actually have no proof that “two people were ‘reportedly’ killed by order under these circumstances”. Everyone has been falling for that kind of BS for a long time. You’re doing what every lefty in the MSM has done for years, not factually reporting something but playing on the emotions of your audience. Besides publishing the relevant sections of the Geneva Conventions you haven’t proved a damn thing.
You believe every time the fake news “is reporting” on something, especially if it speaks to your bias there should be a “senate investigation”. I’m sure you realize how often the fake news is wrong factually.
No no no. I asked for evidence. Where is the report that states this? You’re taking the word of a corrupt, Democrat-financed paper that has ghost edited multiple articles after publishing them (which should be illegal) and admits to not only a strong left bias, but also a style of reporting that is narrative and “moral clarity” based rather than fact and evidence driven.
If you think this is evidence, then you’re part of the problem and a couple notches below insignificant.
What source is WaPo using to corroborate this claim? Do you know?
By the way, you are 100% in the ranks of the majority, and it’s quite clear you like it there so you should probably remove that bullshit from your profile.
WaPo is owned by oligarch Jeff Bezos. I think you saw him at Trump's second coronation along with several other American oligarchs, including Musk and Zuckerberg.
The paper may well be corrupt but it's hardly a "Democrat-financed paper".
When I say “Democrat-financed” I mean that their subscribers are almost all Democrats. I know who owns the failing institution. And why are they failing? Hmmm. Perhaps because they publish then retract stories that weren’t vetted for veracity before they were pushed out to the public. Remember the stories about the Steele dossier they had to retract? Or were you unaware? https://nypost.com/2021/11/12/washington-post-retracts-some-stories-based-on-steele-dossier/
But why would they… oooooh. Yeah. TDS. That was my point. They’re very, very biased and lost a lot of credibility because of it, and lost a lot of revenue because of it.
Sure, Bezos bought it, now he owns it and can’t get rid of it because it’s lost over 200 million in the last 3 years. 77 mil in ‘23, 100 mil in ‘24 and ‘25 numbers aren’t out yet. He bought it for 250 mil. So yeah- he has to prop it up because it’s his asset.
The corruption based on political bias is my concern. Less so now because even Democrats know it sucks, hence the failed subscription model. You’ve read it, right? If so, and if Bezos is such a Trump acolyte as you suggest, how do you explain the galactic leftward slant on all their stories, particularly since he bought it?
If you’d like to nitpick and extend your little pissing contest, I’m happy to oblige 😘
First you wrote, "Trumps admin just carried out a war crime."
Then you followed up with, "Two people were reportedly killed by order under these circumstances. If true, that is a war crime."
"Just carried out" implies the matter is settled and proven beyond a reasonable doubt. "Reportedly" indicates that one has received news or a claim that needs to be investigated, analyzed and determined to be true or false beyond a reasonable doubt.
The concept of "war crimes" is pretty hideous when you think about it. It makes millions of killings "legal."
Personally I don't care what international laws are broken if the act is a legitimate defense of the U.S. and the lives of U.S. citizens. I'm not sure if the drug boats qualify, though I have to wonder why Venezuela keeps sending them. If they were simply drug deliveries I'm sure the cartels have alternate routes they can try. I am not convinced it's the drug cartels sending them at this point.
Those boats were not heading to the U.S. you can’t cross the ocean on a few outboard motors from Venezuela to the U.S. none of them even approached our coast.
I've found it interesting the press never reports (that I've seen so far) on this question. It's 1500 miles, give or take, from the coast of Venezuela to the Gulf coast of the US. You're not making that trip in an open, outboard powered boat. So who are they rendezvousing with?
You have not a clue about things you so confidently state. I did boat training in Curaçao in the 90s on single motor Zodiac crafts. The waterways along the coast of northern South America and Central America and those waters are absolutely navigable by small craft. Have you ever seen a Scarab? That’s the type of boat that’s being blown up. That’s the type of boat Colombians et al used in the late 80s and 90s because they were so powerful and fast they could outrun interdiction.
Small fast boats have been used to smuggle drugs OVER THE OCEAN AND INTO OTHER COUNTRIES for decades.
First you senselessly blather on about war crimes making bold claims you can’t support and now you purport to be an expert on maritime travel and what crafts can go where.
Now, I won’t make the claim that I know for sure that these boats were carrying large quantities of fentanyl or other substances because I haven’t seen the intel. So is it possible that Trump, Hegseth and Rubio are just bloodthirsty tyrants that have thrown caution to the wind and are just welcoming unneeded and damaging blowback from the press just for kicks? Sure.
When at war, even though not announced, if you do not stop the adversary dead in its tracks, you are putting citizens and the country at risk. Venezuela is at war and the scheme being used dates back to the Obama years. It must be stopped.
Are you saying Mexico's drug lords are flying the drugs into our country?
The drug reason is cover. Venezuela is teamed with Hezbollah to run drugs, terrorist and weapons into the towns in the south where foreign entities already own land.
Trump is paying the price for being transparent and not using happy talk. We really don't want to know what's going on and when people use gritty talk, like Trump, hive thinkers become offended. True believers want to be saved from the truth if it hurts.
Sure, I agree that was a dramatic turning point as well. Clearly one who deals in facts can’t disagree. But there were plenty of criminals from before who are alive and breathing i am quite sure.
All of this is just wishing anyway, nobody will ever be punished unless the U.S. falls. We can’t give ourselves the justice we need.
I wonder why democrats never deserve justice?? Matt makes a good point about Obama and the drones. But leftists, the media, and democrats don't count that as a problem. They only want accountability for Trump. Interesting. We are beginning to experience a coup...and then we get those 5 idiot senators. Nice logic andy.
I think you confuse major DNC figures like Obama, Pelosi, the Clintons, Harris, etc. with the actual left. They're neoliberals the actual left is very critical of.
One specific matter you'll no doubt recall was Harris accepting endorsements from people like the Cheneys.
Regarding blowing ships out of the water, consider David Sirota's posting on the subject (the title tells you all you need to know).
On November 3, 2002, in Yemen — a country that the 43rd President, George W. Bush, called “a partner” — the CIA’s Predator drone, a 27-foot (8.2-meter) unmanned surveillance aircraft, killed six people with a Hellfire missile.
One of them was an American citizen. None of the alleged terrorists had a “right to life,” none was given a “final judgment rendered by a competent court,” and none was “presumed innocent until proven guilty.” With that assassination, the United States of America ended the era in which the law mattered. The United States killed — on foreign soil — and arbitrarily punished terrorist suspects. Suspects!?
I wrote that in The End of White Civilization, a lifetime ago. Obama was just the friendly, upcoming face of a woke era that 1984‑ized everything, legitimized madness, and began our descent into hell.
Exactly. Again, watch what Trump actually does, don't listen to his bombast.
The Maryland Man crap drives me berserk. Trump is doing what he's doing to have the truth heard, something legacy media seems unable to present. I only care about his calling news outlets bad names if he censors those outlets. Any evidence of that from Trump's camp?
Re Venezuela. There is something more going on. I have read stories that these boats are not just smuggling drugs, but people. And by people, I mean terrorists. Venezuela is cozy with Hezbollah; there is a small offshore island that is a terrorist training camp. The Venezuela government, hidden by layers of LLCs, supposedly owns several thousand pieces of real estate in the US. Iran has close links with the Venezuelan government. Oh, so does Russia and China. The friend of our enemy is not our friend. Much to dig deeper here.
Wait, are you saying that what comes out of the White House is TRUE? Let's not get ahead of our skis here thinking there are ANY honest actors in this. Whatever "advantages" Trump hasn't enjoyed, his "exaggerations" transcend to the level of what would better be called "bald-faced."
The lunatic theater kid color revolution is escalating. Soros' seditious six subversion agents were trained by the CIA. They have destroyed other countries using the same playbook. Now they are weaponizing the narrative for American soldiers to disobey unlawful orders and tie it to the narco-boat strikes, while distracting from the two national guardsmen who were murdered by one of Biden’s Afghan “refugees”. Time for a refresher course on the color revolution playbook, which was written by swamp creature Norm Eisen: https://yuribezmenov.substack.com/p/norm-eisen-color-revolution-playbook
Matt, you may also want to check in with Mike Benz.
I can't agree with Matt's "2 sides" arguments or how the WH is supposed to behave in this moment. It assumes that we are all performing in good faith, for the good of our country and our citizens. We are not. That train left the station years ago, as we are now learning.
And a lot of our eye-opening occurred with the Twitter files that Matt authored, which seem like child's play in the context of those billboards in North Carolina now.
We are way past "When they go low, we go high." The left does not follow our rules of courtesy and fair play. The left, the hedge funds, intel agencies and NGOs that do its work want eternal global power. Our failed and thoroughly compromised media is doubling down on the lies that support this.
Agreed. It is disappointing to see Matt deciding that the both side's narrative is the best way to cover this or any other story. It is from Matt and Walter, among other sources on Substack, podcasts, and X, that we are all hyper aware of the gross dual standards and extreme bias of the news media. It seems Matt feels that it is his responsibility as a serious journalist to report this as fair as possible, which he obviously believes requires a both sides format, but in view of the overwhelming bias, unfairness, clear and obvious lockstep with the Democratic Party's every narrative, every strategy, that Trump is up against, and the extremely dangerous significance of the democrats political strategy to not only motivate protestors to openly fight our government attempts to enforce our immigration laws, and this new escalation of messaging our military and intelligence personnel to disobey the chain of command, it seems to me that the story needs to be about that, and not to feel some responsibility to play it as a both sides issue. The democrats lost a fair election. Their strategy since their loss has not been one that accepts the voter's decision, and to work on making that necessary changes to their policies that the American people desire, but instead, with tremendous assistance from the news media, have chosen to fight the fairly elected government with lies, spin, false narratives, and continuous propaganda, damaging the fragile democracy they so hypocritically claim to be protecting
If we needed Substack or X to tell us the media and the swamp use double standards, we would be pretty dumb. It's been obvious for decades, it's just more shameless now.
I don't find it disappointing that Matt is a fair, careful journalist who takes justified pride in accuracy and seeing a larger picture. It's one reason I trust his reporting.
I was admittedly one of the dumb ones. I believed 100% in what I heard on NPR and read in the NYT throughout Trump's first term. I believed RussiaGate completely. I was totally fooled. But my enlightenment, which occurred early 2020, I do feel I owe to Substack, and to Podcasts. I observe daily in my personal interactions with friends and family, that what you believe about current events, and politics, is primarily dependent on what your sources of news are. I hear the Dems talking points and narratives regurgitated to me all of the time, simply because the individual doing the regurgitation holds those beliefs because their news sources are the legacy media - their ability to sway public opinion is still a powerful tool of the DNC
It's true that one needs a diet of varied news sources, but seriously? One can read the lack of detail, the spin, the "activism," the substitution of personal bias for fact, without knowing a bit about other arguments.
When I wanted to know about the tax changes in the one Big Beautiful Bill, I didn't read the Times, WaPo, or "conservative" sites' takes - I went to the accounting and financial trades. That gave me fact without spin.
Mazel tov on your casting the blinders off - better late than never! Though I was seeing the pernicious substitution of opinion for fact about 50 years ago, in my teens.
Boy did you hit the nail on the head, and the root of the insanity. Dems can't accept fair elections results. Not 2000 Reps for 6 hours, like the J6 head cases, but tens of millions of Dems, for years. Nor will they accept policy rooted in decades old valid immigration law.
I too feel sorry for illegal immigrants in the country for decades without other crimes and family ties. That does not mean they are not legally deportable, and often in an expedited manner. Their current situations were caused by Dem Open Boarders, not Reps.
Then there is the blatant insanity. The New Yorker ran a sympathetic piece on a convicted murderer deported after 25 years in prison. Yes, now he is an old man. Who cares? He murdered an American, and yet his deportation is still a Trump sin? What type of mental illness is required to sympathize with the murderer , and not the dead American and their family?
Here's the deal. I yearn for civil discourse and true journalism, which is what I find in Matt. And in Matt and Walter. So I will become infuriated and moved to action when the WH lists Matt, Walter, Bari Weiss, the guys on 2-way, Mike Benz etc. as enemies of the state. Until then, I don't care that it may be unseemly to name names and point fingers at institutions and individuals who care not for civil discourse or journalism.
And I don’t care that he calls out reporters for being stupid, because many of their questions are, nor refers to a reporter as “piggy” for hogging time in the Q and A.
I don't mind when he calls them stupid ( I am guilty of that). Calling fat pigs & such is really juvenile. I like most of what he does for the country, but I can't listen to him talk for more than 10 minutes..LOL
Thanks Ronda. I don't feel my experience with the news media is very different from a lot of folks that subscribe to Racket. Many of us were previous consumers of MSM news. Personally I subscribed to the NYT, and listened to NPR several hours a day. I volunteered at my local public radio station during fund drives and was a regular contributor. But they have changed so very radically. Call it TDS as the simplest reason, but the significance of the loss (not just here in the US but the entire western world it seems) of mainstream non-partisan, unbiased news sources cannot be overstated in terms of how it threatens our democracy. Remember "Democracy dies in darkness"? That is where we are now, only the legacy news media does not understand at all how much they have deliberately abandoned fair, honest, unbiased news reporting. There appears to be no limit whatsoever on how far they will go, what lies they will justify, if it is done as a part of the noble cause to destroy the president that the majority of Americans choose
Well said. I have intelligent, wonderful people who believe the MSM without question, it seems. But they have not yet let their minds open up to any other news options. That disappoints and concerns me.
Best to have a top notch lie sniffer although a give a way from the lefties make it easy - 50+ news casters using the exact same language when reporting a supposed 'story'.
Anne. Did you see Nicole Shanahan’s interview last week? She is the ex-wife of tech billionaire, Sergey Brin (Google co-founder). She clued us plebes in on how the other billionaire wives behave and give generously to left wing causes for the good feeling (and PR) it gives them. Perhaps it’s Soros plus many of these doyennes.
As I recall, billionaires supported Harris over Trump about two to one. I suspect the Harris supporters among the super-rich tended to be the ones who inherited the money; e.g., wives and children of the mutant geniuses.
How do you keep the money and not feel guilty about it? For example, instead of helping the poor (expensive), come out *in favor* of helping the poor (less expensive).
Imagine the level of confusion required to believe hedge funds are "the left". That's the right, Anne. If you don't like them, good, now connect the dots.
Matt should be helping you. There are a lot of people here who need that help. Instead he just sails right past oceans of flat-out ignorance or else joins the chorus himself, pausing only to single out and sneer at the occasional commenter who has "read Howard Zinn". I honestly do not understand why.
I give you Soros Management Fund's investments in Rio Tinto as the Soros Open Society Foundation lobbied the Mongolian government to give Rio Tinto a better deal as they sought to extract copper. 60% to the Mongolian people with 40% going to Rio Tinto wasn't good enough.
In short, it is one big, simplistic, black and white telling of our history that conveniently frames historical actions in a modern moral context, all while assuming the equally more insulting "noble savage" trope, as though all natives lived in blissful harmony and did not slaughter and enslave each other.
It's quit apropos that you share Zinn's propensity for black and white thinking and how you conveniently label WS funds as "right" and not "left". All while accusing others of being awash in "oceans of flat-out ignorance" as though you've never heard of ESG scores, or that wall street by and large donates heavily in favor of dems. And please don't come back with some semantical nonsense about what *really is* left or right.
Bottom line is, just give it a rest. Like Zinn, your type is really just as bad as the evangelicals in your holier than thou approach to others and dissenting thought. "There are a lot of people that need [our] help". You don't even see/hear it, do you?
Agreed! The both sides is premature. On its face, Venezuela is about narco terrorism. I suspect it's more like a bay of pigs. We don't know how much foothold our global enemies have there. That may be the true target.
I'm okay with that. And I'm gonna go out on a limb here and speculate that anyone on a small boat with four $20,000 outboard motors probably isn't mackerel fishing
In re Venezuela, the big picture is much more than oil, or drugs. It does involve the Chinese and the Russians, as well as a horde of other bad actors. But at the core is a mission that will be seen in hindsight as the moment the West was saved from the greatest threat ever faced: election rigging on a global scale.
I beg everyone to read this article by Elizabeth Nickson at Welcome to Absurdistan, “The Electorate is Not a 50/50 Split: The Steal is On in 72 Countries
It is also Cuba and Iran who are assisting Venezuela to smuggle weapons and terrorist into the US, right now it's Florida. Lot's of border property owned by foreign entities behind the curtains, so to speak.
I listened to her interview of the CIA whistleblower and book author. I'm not convinced they aren't a grand CIA psyop intended to create a reason to go to war with Venezuela. It's all too convenient as regards US policy. I didn't hear any convincing evidence these guys were legit.
Yes check the Mile Benz the known fraud who lied about being “head of cyber” at state department when he was never hired by the state department, was transferred from a speech writer till at HUD as likely part of a punishment, has zero record of having any work with anything “cyber” there, and left his job at state department in something like 3-7 weeks.
Matt should definitely speak to that known fraud, his idiot MAGA readership would slurp up the slop.
The US/ Israel abroad only follows the rules that benefit our politicians/ oligarchs. This often involves assassinations and bringing in people like Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, al Julani, etc. to destroy societies. And while often effective, such foreign policy is short-sighted.
And inevitably such methods always come home to domestic policies.
Thats not what you did. You made up an absurd lie and lumped the tiny country of Israel fighting an endless war of survival with the United States as if Israem strides the world like an evil colossus. That isnt criticism. Its anti-semitism. Own it.
This afghan was with the cia for 10 yrs eh? No chance he was mind fucked by the cia into a false flag op across the country is there? Interesting the seditious six were sniveling on queue with the psyop.
“Our government moved into an extralegal zone over twenty years ago,…” WELL over twenty years ago. The AngloAmerican Empire doesn’t really care who is doing the day to day chores as long as the wealth extraction continues unobstructed.
I gather that, in Conspiracy-theory Land, a “color revolution” is when the (omniscient and omnipotent and diabolical) CIA overthrows a lovable, cuddly dictator.
I don't get the objection to deploying the National Guard to our cities to maintain order. In the aftermath of a hurricane or similar natural disaster, the Guard is routinely deployed to "stop looting." Isn't that what the Guard is doing in DC, or Memphis? Guaranteeing the safety and security of the citizenry in a de facto disaster zone? And with murders, carjackings, and other violent crimes apparently down significantly in those towns, I'd say the strategy was successful.
It’s against federal law to help people illegally cross the border, and it’s illegal to harbor them. Many of these “sanctuary” locales refuse to enforce the law, which would include cooperation with ICE. So, we end up with National Guard to fill the gap.
What "de-facto disaster zone"? In legitimate deployments the Governor or City ASKS for assistance. Elon Musk's juvenile data-pirate flunky getting his ass jumped in sketchy circumstances in DC does not a "disaster zone" make.
Although some people would tell us to accept high rates carjackings, murders, assaults, and a host of other crimes as "just a part of urban life," candor requires us to acknowledge that all too many of our big cities (including my hometown of Baltimore) have become de facto disaster zones in terms of violent crime and its impact on the safety and security of the citizenry. You really dispute that? If so, you are seriously misinformed.
It doesn't have to be this way. It is possible to live in a big city without the fear of being victimized by criminals, it just takes a real desire to do so. Trump certainly has the authority to deploy the Guard to secure DC, and possibly other cities, too, on the grounds of guaranteeing the security of the citizenry.
I, too, would prefer that local police do the job, but when they won't, or can't, it is reasonable for the feds to step in. I don't recall Gov Orval Faubus asking for federal troops to be deployed to Arkansas to secure the right of its black citizens to attend public schools. But Eisenhower did deploy the 82nd Airborne, and I think it was the right thing to do. Same principle applies here.
Your cheap shot at a victim of the pervasive street violence in DC is a pretty weak excuse for an argument. I'll take it as the best that you can do.
Thanks for remembering Ike's righteous deployment. And for remembering the citizens of the cities who just want to live without fear. The Dems and msm seem to believe that criminals killing innocent citizens is better than National Guardsmen patrolling. I just don't get it.
Baltimore is a tough town. I grew up there, too. And when I moved to the District it was a TOUGHER town. These are places, imo, that got so badly knocked down by the riots in '68 (now THAT was "disaster-zone" worthy)- that they never managed to get back up. But it's not nearly as bad as I remember it from the 80's and early 90's. I'm intimately acquainted with the "pervasive street violence" of our nation's capitol. It doesn't come looking for you. You have to either be looking for it, or REALLY fuck up to find it. I'm not misinformed, to that point; you're just pearl clutching. And thinking that Trump is ordering in the jackboots to "protect the citizenry" as opposed to intimidating local government and a non-compliant population is either disingenuous or naive.
No, it's not me who is "pearl clutching," it is the street thugs grabbing the "pearls" off the necks of their victims.. Yeah, I know all about life in the big city, it is ruled by an undercurrent of fear that we have come to accept as normal. "Oh, but things were so much worse" in the 80s and 90s"--maybe true, but the fact that they were horrendous then doesn't mean that we have to accept that they are merely "bad" now... The numbers don't lie (although maybe they do, 'cuz DC has been cooking the books when it comes to murder, it seems).
So, street violence doesn't come to you "you have to come looking for it, or REALLY fuck up to find it." Congrats, that is the most outrageous example of victim blaming/victim shaming I have ever seen. Yeah, how dare those carjacking victims stop at a red light, when everyone knows you are supposed to just slow down and keep moving on through so the homies can't jump you.
And another thing: the National Guard are not "jackboots." The idea you would say such a thing when a twenty year old has just been gunned down on the street, doing her duty, is beyond pathetic. I guess you don't really understand the power pf words. Some shame is in order.
She wasn't "doing her duty"- she was put there by an irresponsible Governor and criminally corrupt President. She was just a kid following unwise orders. I feel terrible for her, and, frankly, I feel pretty bad for the guy who shot her. Victims of the American committment to perpetual war that I have opposed IRRESPECTIVE of the party affiliation of the administration advocating for (and profiting from) it. And let's be precise-- no, the NG are not the jackboots-- they were ordered in to "protect" the ICE and BP goons terrorizing the citizenry. THOSE are the jackbooted thugs.
Yeah, I agree with the guy below, your comment is imbecilic. And excuse me, the late Sarah Beckstrom was doing her duty, as she was ordered to do, like any other member of the military. But your sympathies are with the monster who walked up and shot her in the head. Whew...
I suppose I should inform my son that he shouldn’t have left Chicago because Josh knows best. Life has gotten so ugly there that it breaks your heart to see. What an amazingly beautiful city, fun too. But that was then.
But we have seen at least one Governor and one Mayor refuse the deployment of the NG to their areas because they are apparently willing to have their citizens suffer unnecessarily, just to give the big middle finger to a President they hate with such intensity it boggles the mind.
Imagine what it must be like to be a beat cop in Chicago or Seattle or LA or Minneapolis and forced to witness a deliberate surrender to violence, looting, and shameless theft, just because your Mayor or Governor doesn't want to have anyone see you join forces with the feds. "Aaah . . . they're only looting a few hundred bucks worth of stuff. We have to wait until their theft adds up to a felony."
"Never mind those guys tossing Molotov Cocktails at the Immigration building. That's the feds' job anyway."
It's a wonder anyone ever enlists with the cops in these cities.
Although my ass would take exception to your "flunky" moniker, the answer is YES, and, in all probability, in very similar circumstances to those in which Musk's pubescent data-pirate found himself. Big cities have crime, especially if you go looking for it. 3 am. in Logan Circle counts (it was WAY worse back in the 90's btw.)
Oh, it was his fault. I understand where you're coming from now. If you're "juvenile" and "pubescent" and walking in the city, you deserve to get a free trip to the hospital. Progressive logic.
I would remind you that that little fucker stole your social security number and date of birth, along with all of your tax records from the first time you filed. And gave them to Elon Musk. Sweet dreams, sunshine.
Lived there for 13 years, my friend. you're in EVERYBODY'S jurisdiction in DC. "Street crime" exists where the various authorities allow it to exist. Trump putting the National Guard in DC has exactly NOTHING to do with public safety (and already got one National Guardsman from West Virginia killed, btw.)
Anyone intellectually honest who worked with Afghans, in Afghanistan, could have seen this coming a long time ago. My brother was fluent in Pashto and was one of those Americans training them. He went on a colossal rant to me about how pointless the whole thing was shortly before he was killed in action in 2008.
Our whole idiom of thinking we can turn every country into the US is idiotic. We absolutely have the right to defend our own borders and make our own rules about who gets to come in and who doesn't. But what goes on everywhere else isn't necessarily our business, and is certainly not worth sending our own people off to get killed over.
The US (CIA/military) does NOT go into other countries to spread democracy. Ar one level, do it to protect commercial interests (see Marine General Smedley Butler: “War is a Racket”), and at a deeper level, all wars are bankers’ wars. Politicians go along because they are very well- compensated, and the people making the big money can expand control at the expense of the plebes who die bc and are maimed.
I thought I was pretty cynical, but you have topped me.
I don’t want to sugar-coat it, but I’ve never read anything to suggest that WWII was a “bankers’ war,” not even German bankers. (Please correct me if I’m wrong.) “Regime change” has acquired a bad smell, but in the end that’s what we fought for in WWII; the fact that it took unconditional surrender and a decade of occupation to accomplish it means it’s not something to undertake lightly.
The problem, of course, is to distinguish the bankers’ wars from the necessary wars, which in real time is sometimes damned hard to do.
Every war, like any other emergency (or non-emergency), offers an opportunity for profit, but it is the genius of the market system that it makes resources become available when needed.
Smedley’s career is certainly one that would disillusion a person; I feel for him. But his recommendations, including that the army be confined to our soil and our navy to basically territorial waters, are over the top. When you can be attacked from ten thousand miles away, porcupining just doesn’t cut it.
I'm going out on a limb here because I haven't read any books on this perspective, but I believe the Germans viewed WWII as an attempt to unyoke themselves from bankers.
Interesting. I suppose they might have felt that the crippling WWI reparations were to "bankers". I would call that an error.
I could go further back and ask about older wars, but I doubt that either Rick or Smedley Butler were talking about things like the Thirty Years War or the Crusades.
Not quite crippling. The reparations owed by Germany after the war could not be paid and France occupied part of Germany to get its coal. The 1924 Dawes Plan required France to leave Germany and Germany would be loaned about $200 million, primarily through Wall Street bond issues in the United States, overseen by a consortium of American investment banks, led by J.P. Morgan & Co. under the supervision of the US State Department. Germany benefited enormously from the influx of foreign capital. Once France was out, Germany used its coal for its steel plants to build arms for the next war. When the great depression hit no more payments from Germany occurred. By 1933, Germany had made World War I reparations of only one eighth of the sum required under the Treaty of Versailles, and owing to the repudiated American loans the United States in effect paid "reparations" to Germany.
No matter how senile Biden was and no matter how deranged Trump is, neither are the worst President this century. That honor belongs to the ignorant, arrogant, moronic George W. Bush, who was blessed with a silver spoon but also the reverse Midas Touch: everything he touched turned to shit.
Can’t believe I missed this angle to the story. We were all steered again to care about the next Current Thing and to forget about the extreme moral urgency of last week’s Current Thing at the same time.
Where were these concerns for the “laws of war” from MIC/IC press organs when the US was droning weddings and its own citizens in the Middle East? I have reservations about Trump potentially escalating to a regime change war in Venezuela, but I refuse to take directions from these amoral cretins.
They doth protest too much. What about targeting drug trafficking in the Caribbean is so anathema to them that they would become sudden converts to limits on executive power to conduct strikes abroad? I think it’s the same alliance of interests as always with the anti-Trump side: opportunism by partisan Democrats joined with a more nefarious protection of Deep State turf.
THank you Matt again, for your honesty. I do not envy you in trying to walk a tight rope between similar propgandizing on both sides. As you say yourself: it makes reporting a hell more difficult. But keep trying. It might seem outmoded but it's the right way.
All of this “Narrative” will be a moot point if we don’t get a grip on Islamists gaining power over government in this country. While we squabble and fight and threaten each other, they plan strategically. I loathe saying this but they’re far more clever than we give them credit for and they’re here for the long haul as Ilhan Omar stated, they’re not going anywhere.
As Dan Burmawi rightly pointed out, the Afghani who shot Sarah Beckstrom and Andrew Wolfe was acting from his teachings as a Muslim, but he isn’t part of the bigger plot. Muslims are
Doing well in the U.S. politically.
Mamdani didn’t go to the Oval Office to simply talk to Trump. He went there to signal to Muslims that this is where they are heading and look at how easy it is to enter past these nice, open society fools.
So, Matt don’t stop what you’re doing to highlight the lunacies. But let’s not allow it to distract us completely from what else is going on with far more dire consequences.
It's nice when one of y'all comes out and just admits what you're about. Somehow I don't think Matt will be responding to you, though. Maybe there's an anti-war leftist for him to shout down somewhere in here instead.
Not that I'm aware of. I didn't say you did. Just that when you respond to someone here it's usually to shout down a leftist making a point of some kind and never to the, well, whatever our friend JAE here is. Or the many many many others like him.
I gripe a lot in these comments but I've read your stuff for decades, I have probably all of your books, I've done the reading and I'm here because I'm a fan. I know you're not pro-war, and I know you're not anti-muslim like JAE here or someone who thinks the MSM and hedge funds are “the Left” like several other commenters in this thread so far. I assume your views are pretty much close to mine on all those things and most other things, which is why I keep feeling the need to mention it when the comments are always full of rupert murdoch-pilled cable news consumers spewing the grossest ignorance unchallenged and that's just the new norm that elicits no comment or interest
I think when you are dropping missiles on drug boats your intention to "kill them all" is pretty clear. Coddling criminals of any sort has been practiced and tolerated for far too long. Do I want another forever war? Hell no! But pretending we don't have criminals among us from drug cartels and from third world countries is no solution. Cleaning up a decades old mess is going to take time and by necessity be very difficult and dirty work.
Maybe you’re moving humans. Maybe not. Either way, there’s been zero evidence presented much less any court weighing in on any of it.
It’s as simple as this, the president points to a person or group, calls them terrorists without evidence or a trial or a fair hearing, and then kills them.
Then people who support the current admin cheer it on and tell everybody who opposes the criminal acts as terrorist supporters.
This isn’t anything new. It’s been going on forever and it’s a very pernicious and terrible practice. All you have to do to kill anyone anywhere is just consider them a terrorist.
What if they were moving people? And should we also blow up American boats with more than one outboard motor? Just kill Americans without a trial or even investigation, just because it’s obvious, Marie?
Perhaps you guys should read the history of the coast guard and how they’ve had to consistently change to adapt to the cleverness of drug smugglers. The submersibles are difficult to detect but pretty obvious to most that they aren’t fishing or leisurely enjoying a joy ride. They are small and compact , certainly not economical for human smuggling. There are multi levels of detection used to determine what these targeted boats are up to. We are in a war on drugs and those drugs are killing 100,000s young adults or more annually. I’m willing to make a major bet that this war on drugs has been going on for some time. People being killed, blown up during raids etc. but because DJT is running the show every microscopic event he does (like getting an MRI) hits the press. I’m surprised we aren’t discussing whether he has consistent bowel movements. I didn’t see shit about Obama literally droning Americans .
This policy is a direct result of Obama droning hundreds of people, including at least one American and many not citizens of countries, with whom we were at war. How much proof did we see these were legitimate targets? We didn't. Obama labeled them terrorists, and someone fired.
It is Trump's speciality. Most of his policies are recycled Dem actions, or a direct result of previous Dem actions.
The administration and the War Department isn't required to vomit up evidence for every military action. Congress has the job of oversight, so you might want to write your reps and demand answers.
Hahaha. I guess you haven't seen the videos. That could be one of the most idiotic comments I've seen so far. As I said earlier...you are getting more and more stupid with every passing second.
Also, 10 billion estimated recoverable oil next door to Venezuela in Guyana. Chevron and Exxon already there. Think about that next time you fill your tank.
Just because the CIA found someone conditionally useful in-Situ doesn't mean they get invited to the house for Thanksgiving. So that is a non-starter. The truth is that Biden filled planes with God knows who and turned them loose in the USA. Are we surprised that some people essentially from the Taliban find things uncomfortable here in the USA??
What I remember most from those civilians that were there with planes they paid for to fly out US citizens - Biden state department was coordinating which planes to could fly out when. The civilians had passengers but were not allowed to take off unless they only took those okayed by the state dept. and not until the Afghans all got in the air.
It is the ultimate indictment of our system that this answer is possible in the first place. When we finessed the unitary executive for the career civil service we made it all but impossible for elections to matter at all.
It's difficult for me to get all het up over the sight of National Guard patrolling our cities because I grew up in the 60's, when (if memory serves correctly), National Guard troops were frequently deployed to various US cities.
When I read Matt these days, I feel like I am reading someone from a bygone era, before the media actually declared itself to be an enemy of Trump and not obligated to any standard of objectivity. Media is now pure power struggle. Pretending otherwise seems naive, but “sweet”.
That's a large part of why I enjoy and trust Matt. He does, indeed, look to standards of an old fashioned cast. As do I. It's a mistake, always, to throw babies out with bathwater.
Standards of objectivity in the media are wonderful to hope for, but Trump is not a media figure. He is in a political battle and we should have no expectation that he be objective or fair in any way give this context (people are out to destroy him). Is he supposed to be an objective journalist? Standards of journalism have gone down the toilet and in a desperate political battle, it is foolish to expect any politician to be hands off the media when the media has defaulted on their job. Seems like Matt is comparing the media to a politician, expecting the latter to have a standard of objectivity (which has never existed) while the former has become entirely political twisting the truth into strange fantasies. Who wouldn’t want to have an objective fair media? What are the odds? What is to be done when the media are actively subversive? Trump has won several lawsuits against the media, to no effect.
This is true, but all the contrasts in his article are between msm and Trump officials. Naturally, the Trumpists will resist the main stream narrative. Matt seems to think the anti-media narrative is crucial and sometimes threatening, thus very important. They are not bound by journalistic standards. Matt seems to be asking for some kind of consistency over time in media evaluating various “war crimes” potential. This is reasonable. This balance has to occur WITHIN the msm, even though lots of people look to other sources. So, in my opinion, the fault lies there. If Trump drives people so crazy that they cannot maintain a rational stance, they are lost. Matt has an evolving history of degrading Trump, from viewing him as a “clown” to more recently as a “scary” (he uses that term a lot) authoritarian. His struggle to be objective is difficult. I think it would be helpful for him to state some of his underlying assumptions. This is required to be objective, which is only a theoretical goal.
Excuse me for thinking writing a book about Trump being a “clown” is “degrading” rather and just “critical”. Matt has evolved but, in my opinion, he does not understand Trump. No one’s judgment is perfect. We all change. What did I give myself away as? I’m curious. I presume you know something about me now that you have seen what I am, as I gave myself away with my horrifying use of the term “degrading.” I must be hiding something which in your wisdom, you have penetrated. Wow I am in awe of your honest active mind.
“Donald Trump just wants to ignore laws and start wars like every other president.” What? Didn’t DJT campaign on a platform of “no more stupid wars?” This is classic neo Matt Taibbi: condemn Trump in the most mealy-mouthed low level manner within a “everybody does it” context so he doesn’t lose MAGA subscribers but is still on record of objecting to (sort of) a disturbing and likely illegal Trump act.
"Of course I don't support it, but" is the new Taibbi formula.
Just try to imagine any heinous thing the authoritarian right (donkey and elephant) could do right now that Taibbi wouldn't respond to with something along the lines of, "I always oppose this kind of thing and always have, but it's fine". I can't.
It’s a legitimate observation. Lately Matt’s been using the “not comfortable” phraseology, unfortunately.
I’m a big Matt Taibbi fan, and by all means, alienate the MAGA believers here. Many people voted for Trump only because it was impossible to vote for Harris, it’s worth remembering.
I would hazard a guess that a lot of the MAGA base have a similar, “not comfortable”, feeling. As you rightfully point out though and as always seems to be the case, our elections always seem to be a choice of "the lesser of two evils".
There's no point if there is no non-authoritarian alternative. Pissing in the wind. The Democrats have demonstrated they know how to be just as authoritarian when it's their turn. If futile argument is your goal, more power to you. I'd like to figure out how best to weather the storm.
I agree with you. I enjoy MTs take on things, it makes me shift positions often. And can agree that Harris was not it. But I can never vote for DJT, and have a hard time respecting anyone who does.
Correct. Notice how he had ZERO vitriol in the article for those who supported BOTH the illegal strikes against Islamic terrorist targets under Obama AND those under Trump? That’s because those people are called “Trump supporters” and make up the majority of his idiotic, strong-man loving, troglodytic modern audience.
Do you make up the majority of his audience or are you in the minority? I didn’t call you any names, in fact, I myself am a member of his audience. I have to actually say “not all Trump supporters, but most” I guess?
Sorry Matt, but this seems like a giant lot of well padded fence straddling. Senator Kelly, who is one of my senators, should be recalled and tried for sedition. You can do better.
I don't think a case can be made for sedition; however, those Senators in the video and the DOJ may want to take note of Section 2387, which establishes the criminality of attempting to persuade military personnel away from doing their duty.
It's rather wonderful, of course, that it is also criminal to facilitate illegal immigration, and under Biden we saw soldiers doing exactly that. Someone should ask Senators Slotkin and Kelly whether those orders should have been refused, as they were clearly illegal.
Yes. We all saw soldiers committing the crime. Perhaps they should have refused the illegal orders? I am sure all the Democrats would have applauded (/sarc).
We're a "rules-based" order, Matt, not a law-abiding country. And the "rules" are made, adjusted, and broken to advance the interests of the most powerful entities, supported by a SCOTUS that's corporate-friendly.
As you yourself one wrote, powerful people don't have to evade the law. They make and remake the laws to make their corruption legal. And that's true domestically and internationally.
So the "law" or the AUMF is twisted to make even vigilante acts "legal." Don't like it--too bad.
Sorry, the AUMF has been "twisted" since it was first force-fed to the American people over twenty years ago.. Turns out, if you give Presidents open-ended power to attack our "enemies," they will use it, both Republicans and Democrats. But yeah, when Obama did it, it was good, right?
Notice how you and Matt only care about the hypocrites who supported the illegality under Obama but oppose it under Trump, but neither of you mention the people who supported BOTH sets of illegal strikes? Those people are called Trump supporters.
They support any and all U.S. violence because it’s justified violence. It’s justified violence because the U.S. is the one doing it.
You find hypocritical liberals all over, but nobody seems to notice or care about the legion of idiot Americans who support all illegal strikes all the time. Those people can be found in one camp - the Trump camp.
You’re completely wrong. Whether he deserved those votes or not a sizable chunk of Trump’s voter base is antiwar. I covered this early in his first campaign; the number of returning pissed-off soldiers made up bigger and bigger portions of his crowds as 2016 went on. The campaigns of people like Lindsey Graham flatlined because of their pro-war rhetoric that year and Trump got massive numbers of votes last year because of Ukraine (and even Gaza, despite his promises to be an even bigger supporter of Israel than Biden). This is the classic snobbish, cosmopolitan, wrong take on Trump’s supporters - that they’re monolithic uneducated racist Yahoos. They’re not. It’s a patchwork of all kinds of different voters, some of whom are antiwar/isolationist as a rule (eg the former Ron Paul voters). This is like saying all Democrats are pro-war, when that really can only be said about the party. This troll act is tiresome.
I was not making a statement about all Trump voters. I never said “all Trump voters” or “all” of anybody, you’re simply attacking a straw man argument that is easier to defeat than what I actually said. I am specifically saying that the Trump camp has more people in it who supported both Obama’s acts under the AUMF and Trumps acts than any other political organization or group. Further, whether you identify that group as being in the Trump camp or something else, you never criticize them, you focus obsessively on liberal hypocrites instead of those who consistently support war crimes and illegal wars, people like Marco Rubio for example. He’s a figure who depicts to a fucking “T” exactly the Trump camp I’m talking about. Supported the wars then, supports them now, actually runs the administration largely.
Of the people who supported the war on terror AND who support all of Trump's current acts of war in Iran, Venezuela or wherever else, they nearly universally but certainly mostly, reside in the Trump camp.
That isn’t to say that there aren’t a large amount of people who voted for an anti-war president in Trump. Many of them now feel completely cheated and lied to, by the way.
This isn’t a cosmopolitan viewpoint, it is one that doesn’t coddle the Trump camp by pretending they are majority anti-war or have concerns about presidential overreach when it comes to violence overseas.
Please, tell me with a straight face that the Democrat party or any other U.S. political organization/group has more people who supported acts of war under Obama and Trump than the current Trump coalition, (not just his voters but the people he actually put into power like Rubio.) Please name them since I’m so wrong and naive and cosmopolitan and you are so clear-eyed and in touch with all Americans.
So “the people who supported BOTH sets of illegal strikes? Those people are called Trump supporters” doesn’t mean all Trump supporters? That’s not a lazy generalization? Lol. Way to unmask yourself.
"Those people are called Trump supporters" is meant to convey that if one were to draw a Venn diagram of the people who support both sets of strikes, the vast majority would fall under supporting Trump today.
It is to say that "The group of people who unflinchingly support US violence overseas are called Trump supporters" not that "All people who are Trump supporters are people who support US violence overseas." The majority of the first group are Trump supporters and reside in the GOP, so that's what I call them. Not all Trump supporters have this stance, obviously. But if a majority of a group supports Trump, why is it wrong to call them Trump supporters?
If your contention is that this group does not majority support Trump and reside in the GOP, who do they support and where do they reside politically? The Democrat party? Somewhere else?
The majority of X are Y so I call them Y. That does not mean all Y are X. I have attempted to stress this concept in multiple comments on this post specifically conceding that not all Trump supporters are like this and that isn't even the point I am trying to make, yet here you are insisting that it is while completely ignoring the actual point I have repeated over and over - your ire for those, like Marco Rubio ect, who aren't liberal hypocrites but consistently support such wars is essentially totally absent in your coverage for at least about a year.
This is a completely reasonable critique, it is based on actual reality not TDS or some kind of emotional grudge against one party or the other, and is not "trolling" as much as you may see it that way. Though I suppose trolling is in the eye of the trolled? I would hope you would engage with my actual argument, but instead you haven't. Perhaps *you* are trolling *me*?
👍 I’ve voted for Ron and Rand in primaries more often than I’ve voted for Trump. Voted for JD for senate…Trump keeps going the way he is and it’ll be mighty mighty hard for JD to get my vote in ‘28. I’ll just go back to voting LP for them to keep ballot access😶
Yeah, but that’s because HE CAMPAIGNED on being AGAINST the forever wars— but it looks like here we go again, huh? I’m glad we found a country to invade with some oil reserves, for a change (ahem).
He works for us, and if he has some secret info on Venezuela that will justify a regime change, he needs to share it with us. I'm tired of the government treating us like a bunch of saps, who can be swayed with certain words or phrases like "terrorist" or "narco-terrorist" into supporting whatever stupid military shenanigans they come up with.
Andrew, the fallacy--one of them, anyway--in your argument is the assumption that these are "illegal strikes." As Matt points out, they are legally authorized under the open-ended AUMF, which gave the President very broad powers to launch limited strikes against anybody deemed a terrorist enemy. The strikes may be ill-considered, morally wrong, etc., but they are not "illegal."
For the record: I was opposed to the AUMF when it was adopted as the Declaration of Endless War which it quickly became. I'd like to see it repealed, along with The Patriot Act. Your stereotyping of "the Trump camp" is putting blinders on your ability to see the complexity of this time in American history. Maybe try removing them.
Article 8 (2) (c) (iv) War crime of sentencing or execution without due process
Elements
The perpetrator passed sentence or executed one or more persons.58
Such person or persons were either hors de combat, or were civilians, medical personnel or religious personnel taking no active part in the hostilities.
The perpetrator was aware of the factual circumstances that established this status.
There was no previous judgement pronounced by a court, or the court that rendered judgement was not “regularly constituted”, that is, it did not afford the essential guarantees of independence and impartiality, or the court that rendered judgement did not afford all other judicial guarantees generally recognized as indispensable under international law.59
The perpetrator was aware of the absence of a previous judgement or of the denial of relevant guarantees and the fact that they are essential or indispensable to a fair trial.
Unless the AUMF in itself is unconstitutional and all of those strikes were illegal despite the veneer of “authorization.”
Please tell me which political organization/movement/group has more people in it that supported both sets of strikes, legally and morally than the current “Trump camp” because I’d be genuinely curious to know who they are. The liberals are hypocritically calling out illegal acts, but others are actually supporting the acts.
I suppose it is a legalistic game of semantics whether or not something that was “authorized” as “legal” was actually illegal if the “authorization” in itself was unconstitutional.
Andrew, the Supreme Court has not, to my knowledge, ruled in the constitutionality of AUMF because lower courts have been reluctant to intervene in what they have deemed (rightly or wrongly) to be a political question between the legislative and executive branches. SO, no "semantics" here, the AUMF is both legal and constitutional as of this morning. But again, that does not make it right.
Your concern about whether more Dems or Republicans support these strikes seems entirely hypothetical and not very important... Today, I'd argue that the Dems are at least as much the party of Endless War as the Trump Republicans... Don't forget Joe Biden would have funded the Ukraine War without even saying the word "peace"... And don't forget, "the Trump Camp" is full of people like me who are former lifetime Dems.. Again, take off the ideological blinders and dare to see the world as it is today. You might be amazed.
Do you disagree that a Venn diagram that shows who supported all of the acts done under the AUMF both 20 years ago and today would show them falling under the Trump Camp circle or do you just regard that as largely unimportant?
I believe that they do fall in the Trump camp and I do believe it is important if the majority of the supporters of the current administration in power have a track record of universal support for U.S. violence overseas essentially every time they occur. But I generally agree that there is no group who hold political power who consistently oppose warfare and meddling overseas.
I voted for Trump twice, and support neither his strikes on these boats, nor Obama's gleeful expansion of Bush II's drone warfare. I didn't support the drone strikes when they were happening, and nothing I have seen has changed my mind.
Good, I applaud you unironically, but that isn’t true about the majority of Trump supporters. More to my point, the Trump camp has the largest amount of people who did the opposite of you and supported all the illegal actions. If you were to draw a Venn diagram of who supports both sets of illegal strikes they would occupy the “Trump camp” circle more than any other political group.
Thank you. May I know on what you base the assertion? I do think it's likely true that more Republican voters support and supported all these actions, and I disagree with them quite strongly. But it's at least consistent - is that really worse than the hypocrisy of lauding the Obama killing machine and excoriating Trump? I wouldn't think it is, but your view may differ . . .
I base it on that liberals currently oppose some of this purely for political reasons while most Trump supporters I’ve seen or talked to basically support this and have no issues with it because they follow Trump essentially no matter what.
I think that both are forms of supporting international imperial tyranny by the U.S. aimed at different flavors of political factions with slightly different ideologies that both ultimately justify any and all U.S. violence overseas.
Which is worse? Hard to say. I’d say that doing it openly is at least more honest, and perhaps allows for the opportunity for foreign actors to align themselves in a bloc against the U.S. without any issue that they have to deal with the pretense that the U.S. respects international law or the sovereignty of nations. With that being so clear, global powers will be more easily able to unite against U.S. malfeasance.
You know, I had a very wise woman tell me one time, when you’re pointing a finger at someone point three back at yourself. A mirror would be a good call for you right about now.
Trump will never get an honest review by the MSM. Is he doing anything that his predecessors have not? I'm fine with our military defending our borders, blowing up boats bringing illegal drugs into our country, and supproting police in various unruly cities. Even Muriel Bowser has been supportive of those efforts after they were proven to help. My tax dollars at work protecting regular folks.
As far as these irresponsible "seditious six", exactly what are you trying to do here? I'm sorry, but my increasingly cynical outlook on politics and power lead me to dark places. They are definitely trying to undermine our current President. Why? I've come to beleive the Deep State is very real, and nothing the voters do will change anything, short of a civil war. I saw the term used "Cold civil war", and that is where we are now. Families torn apart by a media that just lies and inflames tensions between the sides.
The future is not looking very rosey at the moment.
There is, fortunately, nothing remotely illegal about trying to undermine the President, an offense which would put a significant fraction of our country in jail. There is a long, long continuum between a drunk mouthing off at the barroom CNN broadcast and a cabal of conspirators stabbing Caesar in the Forum. Those six idiots might be past the midpoint, they might even be 95% of the way there, it there’s still a long ways to go.
(That said, of course there’s a Deep State and of course we’re in a Cold Civil War. We are now called upon to prevent it from turning Hot, and supporting fact-based journalism is a vital part of that. The brinkmanship that says things can’t get any worse and all we can do is ensure that our side wins is…how we got here.)
The Left has long benefited from the fact that all of its captured institutions can do dirty work on behalf of its politicians. Barack Obama didn’t have to engage in nasty propaganda because the media did it for him.
Trump has no such advantages. The only way the Left’s foibles make it to the ears of the masses is if he himself posts about them and exaggerates them so as to goad left-wing media into publishing his posts. This has often worked because audiences then see that Trump’s exaggerations are closer to reality than the Left’s narratives.
So yes, it’s ugly that the White House is calling out media lies itself. But will the public hear the truth if the White House doesn’t?
The claims that we are experiencing a color revolution sure seem to be playing out as if we are genuinely experiencing one. And since journalists and the media have lower public approval ratings than even does Congress, and for good reasons, it seems like some pushback is warranted. If they expect a defense from the public they might try being truthful and not engaging in political activism for a change.
They cannot
They are now owned
Unless they break completely.
It’s just Truth and Reconciliation all over again.
You can’t have reconciliation without first getting the truth.
Same way you can’t have an actual “pardon” without first publicly admitting to the crime?
Don’t you just love NBC commercial running now about how truthful and forthright they are as a news organization. That should be telling that they have to actually advertise that.
It's coming up on the 9 year anniversary of "Democracy Dies in Darkness". That's when I knew the media was toast.
For the reason that they were one of the last to put up a paywall, I read WaPo for many years leading up to 2015-2016. And I think that watching the paper over about 18 months leading up to "Democracy Dies in Darkness" is best compared to the face-melting scene in Raiders of the Lost Ark. Self-immolation.
Back in 2018 I was working as a contract programmer/data-analyst at a major media analysis firm. You've all heard of it.
The walls were plastered with TVs. Notably, the only station I never saw on a TV was Fox News. I'm not a Fox News booster but the absence of that station was conspicuous given that there were multiple sets showing ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC and CNN.
What particularly struck me was how I could walk from room to room and often not just hear the same story but the exact same wording coming from different stations.
The synchronicity was stunning. I specifically remember the time around the confirmation of Gina Haspel as CIA chief and how the phrase "Trump's controversial choice" was being parroted on every set.
It seemed completely overt and unhidden. I guess part of the strategy is the assumption that few people would notice the "scripting of the news".
“Controversial” and “divisive” are partisan bad words, and nothing more. Given an 80/20 issue where the media platform sides with the 20%, the 80% position will be described as “controversial” and “divisive”, and the 20% position never will be.
They all say the same thing because they all go to happy hour together.
By 2018 the Twitter effect was overriding - the bubble that these folks lived in was then and and is now an online social media echo chamber, largely.
Seven years ago, at least people still had moderate exposure to those TV stations. Now, everyone's much more reliant on social media and info from phones. During the ICE protest/riots in LA earlier this year, people on social media earnestly protested images of burning police cars and Waymos as "fake news" when it was literally on local news stations every night for a week.
The Left, The Left... The Right, The Left, The Right, The Left... Left, Left... Left, Right, Left... Left Right, Right Left.
It doesn't mean anything anymore. George Galloway had a great line about this being the era of cross dressing in many senses: the "anti-war left" spends all its time now foaming at the mouth about the need to fight Putin to the last Ukrainian, the warmongering neocons now suddenly are concerned about illegal operations, and Trump who promised to end overseas entanglements is closing Venezuelan airspace and sending bunker busters into Iran.
The left has never been anti-war. Just anti-Western.
AMERICA!! Fuck yeah!
True dat!
To the rear, march!
Had a good home and left…left, right, left…
Who knew the cheat code for Super Mario Bros. would ever make such a comeback.
Right? It's such a tough situation. Seems no-win. Every time I think, "Ugh; wish he hadn't said that", I remember just how stacked the deck is against him, like no other president- ever.
Yes, still are. How many repubs actually speak up in his defense? The Uniparty wants him gone.
“is if he posts them himself and exaggerates them….” What a disturbed perspective. “Trumps exaggerations are closer to reality than the Lefts narratives.” Talk about someone without a grip on reality.
Scott Adams has described himself using the same technique.
He intentionally exaggerated a statistic, a statistic unfavorable to the progressive cause.
Media progressives, unable to resist catching him in a mistake, ended up publishing information they would normally have suppressed.
This story isn’t about whether what Trump is doing is illegal.
The story is about double standard.
Like your post, same thing
The media isn’t lying that Trumps admin just carried out a war crime.
Which you support.
What is the war crime and what statute defines it as such? Be specific. Extraordinary claims require strong and precise evidence. You have offered none. I’m not disagreeing with you, nor am I agreeing. I just think if you’re going to make a condemnation, you should support it.
Geneva Convention (II) for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea (1949), Article 12, mandates that:
• Wounded, sick, and shipwrecked persons must be respected and protected in all circumstances.
• Any attempts upon their lives or violence to their persons shall be strictly prohibited. In particular, they shall not be murdered or exterminated.
• Customary international law extends this protection to all shipwrecked persons, whether civilian or military, as long as they refrain from any act of hostility. Once a person is in the water and injured or stranded after their vessel has been destroyed, they are considered "out of the fight" and are protected persons.
• Targeting and killing them while in this defenseless state is a war crime.
Two people were reportedly killed by order under these circumstances. If true, that is a war crime. Instead of taking this seriously and posting evidence that this was untrue, Hegseth put up an image parody of Franklin the Turtle killing drug smugglers.
So you’re believing the virtuous reporting of the Washington Post I see…that could be a problem with your argument. I’m skeptical because they rarely report accurately.
Let’s be real, even if this is 100% confirmed as I described, would you even care?
Would you actually complain or dissent at all if you found out that this administration murdered these people and committed a war crime?
Be honest.
The Washington Post has to show how much it agrees with its newsletter readers.
You actually have no proof that “two people were ‘reportedly’ killed by order under these circumstances”. Everyone has been falling for that kind of BS for a long time. You’re doing what every lefty in the MSM has done for years, not factually reporting something but playing on the emotions of your audience. Besides publishing the relevant sections of the Geneva Conventions you haven’t proved a damn thing.
There is reporting that this occurred and there should be a senate investigation to prove it.
consider who "reported it" and what are their sources (anonymous does not count as a source).
You believe every time the fake news “is reporting” on something, especially if it speaks to your bias there should be a “senate investigation”. I’m sure you realize how often the fake news is wrong factually.
Or disprove it?
No no no. I asked for evidence. Where is the report that states this? You’re taking the word of a corrupt, Democrat-financed paper that has ghost edited multiple articles after publishing them (which should be illegal) and admits to not only a strong left bias, but also a style of reporting that is narrative and “moral clarity” based rather than fact and evidence driven.
If you think this is evidence, then you’re part of the problem and a couple notches below insignificant.
What source is WaPo using to corroborate this claim? Do you know?
By the way, you are 100% in the ranks of the majority, and it’s quite clear you like it there so you should probably remove that bullshit from your profile.
Useful idiot.
WaPo is owned by oligarch Jeff Bezos. I think you saw him at Trump's second coronation along with several other American oligarchs, including Musk and Zuckerberg.
The paper may well be corrupt but it's hardly a "Democrat-financed paper".
That’s funny…they are billionaires and business people, just like Trump. They’ll support both sides
When I say “Democrat-financed” I mean that their subscribers are almost all Democrats. I know who owns the failing institution. And why are they failing? Hmmm. Perhaps because they publish then retract stories that weren’t vetted for veracity before they were pushed out to the public. Remember the stories about the Steele dossier they had to retract? Or were you unaware? https://nypost.com/2021/11/12/washington-post-retracts-some-stories-based-on-steele-dossier/
But why would they… oooooh. Yeah. TDS. That was my point. They’re very, very biased and lost a lot of credibility because of it, and lost a lot of revenue because of it.
Sure, Bezos bought it, now he owns it and can’t get rid of it because it’s lost over 200 million in the last 3 years. 77 mil in ‘23, 100 mil in ‘24 and ‘25 numbers aren’t out yet. He bought it for 250 mil. So yeah- he has to prop it up because it’s his asset.
The corruption based on political bias is my concern. Less so now because even Democrats know it sucks, hence the failed subscription model. You’ve read it, right? If so, and if Bezos is such a Trump acolyte as you suggest, how do you explain the galactic leftward slant on all their stories, particularly since he bought it?
If you’d like to nitpick and extend your little pissing contest, I’m happy to oblige 😘
Just to be a stickler:
First you wrote, "Trumps admin just carried out a war crime."
Then you followed up with, "Two people were reportedly killed by order under these circumstances. If true, that is a war crime."
"Just carried out" implies the matter is settled and proven beyond a reasonable doubt. "Reportedly" indicates that one has received news or a claim that needs to be investigated, analyzed and determined to be true or false beyond a reasonable doubt.
Thanks, however this new report reeks of Russia Hoax repeat ..
Which puts him in the same league as Obama. Only the media didn't call them war crimes at the time (most of the media, anyway).
None of them ever get punished despite what the media does or does not say about them.
The concept of "war crimes" is pretty hideous when you think about it. It makes millions of killings "legal."
Personally I don't care what international laws are broken if the act is a legitimate defense of the U.S. and the lives of U.S. citizens. I'm not sure if the drug boats qualify, though I have to wonder why Venezuela keeps sending them. If they were simply drug deliveries I'm sure the cartels have alternate routes they can try. I am not convinced it's the drug cartels sending them at this point.
If the United Nations is the arbiter of international law, then international laws aren't worth the paper they aren't even printed on
And without any answers to any of those questions you believe blowing them up is appropriate behavior.
Those boats were not heading to the U.S. you can’t cross the ocean on a few outboard motors from Venezuela to the U.S. none of them even approached our coast.
I've found it interesting the press never reports (that I've seen so far) on this question. It's 1500 miles, give or take, from the coast of Venezuela to the Gulf coast of the US. You're not making that trip in an open, outboard powered boat. So who are they rendezvousing with?
You have not a clue about things you so confidently state. I did boat training in Curaçao in the 90s on single motor Zodiac crafts. The waterways along the coast of northern South America and Central America and those waters are absolutely navigable by small craft. Have you ever seen a Scarab? That’s the type of boat that’s being blown up. That’s the type of boat Colombians et al used in the late 80s and 90s because they were so powerful and fast they could outrun interdiction.
Small fast boats have been used to smuggle drugs OVER THE OCEAN AND INTO OTHER COUNTRIES for decades.
First you senselessly blather on about war crimes making bold claims you can’t support and now you purport to be an expert on maritime travel and what crafts can go where.
Now, I won’t make the claim that I know for sure that these boats were carrying large quantities of fentanyl or other substances because I haven’t seen the intel. So is it possible that Trump, Hegseth and Rubio are just bloodthirsty tyrants that have thrown caution to the wind and are just welcoming unneeded and damaging blowback from the press just for kicks? Sure.
Is it likely? Only in your poor malleable mind.
They typically head for a Caribbean island which acts like a hub for drugs to be distributed to US and Europe
Good point..Wonder if some of those containers held fuel..
Where were they headed? What were they up to? Why do they keep sending them?
When at war, even though not announced, if you do not stop the adversary dead in its tracks, you are putting citizens and the country at risk. Venezuela is at war and the scheme being used dates back to the Obama years. It must be stopped.
https://x.com/jasonlewris/status/1989863593492582552?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1989863593492582552%7Ctwgr%5Ec3ef636faf42c85fb37ad52ddd5c6c2c7b50f14e%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.zerohedge.com%2Fgeopolitical%2Fcould-small-venezuelan-island-be-real-reason-behind-us-militarys-caribbean-buildup
https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/could-small-venezuelan-island-be-real-reason-behind-us-militarys-caribbean-buildup
I agree..However, we haven't shut down Mexico's airspace yet. Most of the drugs come from there.
Are you saying Mexico's drug lords are flying the drugs into our country?
The drug reason is cover. Venezuela is teamed with Hezbollah to run drugs, terrorist and weapons into the towns in the south where foreign entities already own land.
Again, go back 20 years ago and work your way up to now. You can't just start now cause Trump is white
Why start at 20 years ago? Why assume I give a shit that Trump is white (he’s an orange colored man with German heritage) at all?
Every living war criminal in the U.S. should be tried and punished to the maximum.
and how about other war criminals in the world that are truly considered as such, how come their countries dont try them?
Trump is not a war criminal, he is simply doing things he is legally allowed to do, and you dont like it. sour grapes.
Trump is paying the price for being transparent and not using happy talk. We really don't want to know what's going on and when people use gritty talk, like Trump, hive thinkers become offended. True believers want to be saved from the truth if it hurts.
Patriot Act and AUMF. That's the twenty year inflection point.
Sure, I agree that was a dramatic turning point as well. Clearly one who deals in facts can’t disagree. But there were plenty of criminals from before who are alive and breathing i am quite sure.
All of this is just wishing anyway, nobody will ever be punished unless the U.S. falls. We can’t give ourselves the justice we need.
I wonder why democrats never deserve justice?? Matt makes a good point about Obama and the drones. But leftists, the media, and democrats don't count that as a problem. They only want accountability for Trump. Interesting. We are beginning to experience a coup...and then we get those 5 idiot senators. Nice logic andy.
That is why they will never show us the Archives.
I think you confuse major DNC figures like Obama, Pelosi, the Clintons, Harris, etc. with the actual left. They're neoliberals the actual left is very critical of.
One specific matter you'll no doubt recall was Harris accepting endorsements from people like the Cheneys.
Regarding blowing ships out of the water, consider David Sirota's posting on the subject (the title tells you all you need to know).
https://www.levernews.com/trumps-kill-list-brought-to-you-by-obama-and-cheney/
On November 3, 2002, in Yemen — a country that the 43rd President, George W. Bush, called “a partner” — the CIA’s Predator drone, a 27-foot (8.2-meter) unmanned surveillance aircraft, killed six people with a Hellfire missile.
One of them was an American citizen. None of the alleged terrorists had a “right to life,” none was given a “final judgment rendered by a competent court,” and none was “presumed innocent until proven guilty.” With that assassination, the United States of America ended the era in which the law mattered. The United States killed — on foreign soil — and arbitrarily punished terrorist suspects. Suspects!?
I wrote that in The End of White Civilization, a lifetime ago. Obama was just the friendly, upcoming face of a woke era that 1984‑ized everything, legitimized madness, and began our descent into hell.
It's not just the Left. I haven't heard the Right standing up for him most of the time. The Uniparty likes things the way they are.
Exactly. Again, watch what Trump actually does, don't listen to his bombast.
The Maryland Man crap drives me berserk. Trump is doing what he's doing to have the truth heard, something legacy media seems unable to present. I only care about his calling news outlets bad names if he censors those outlets. Any evidence of that from Trump's camp?
Re Venezuela. There is something more going on. I have read stories that these boats are not just smuggling drugs, but people. And by people, I mean terrorists. Venezuela is cozy with Hezbollah; there is a small offshore island that is a terrorist training camp. The Venezuela government, hidden by layers of LLCs, supposedly owns several thousand pieces of real estate in the US. Iran has close links with the Venezuelan government. Oh, so does Russia and China. The friend of our enemy is not our friend. Much to dig deeper here.
Wait, are you saying that what comes out of the White House is TRUE? Let's not get ahead of our skis here thinking there are ANY honest actors in this. Whatever "advantages" Trump hasn't enjoyed, his "exaggerations" transcend to the level of what would better be called "bald-faced."
Isn't the White House distributing lies to the media? Or more like shoveling lies to the media?
Ding Ding Ding!!🎯
The lunatic theater kid color revolution is escalating. Soros' seditious six subversion agents were trained by the CIA. They have destroyed other countries using the same playbook. Now they are weaponizing the narrative for American soldiers to disobey unlawful orders and tie it to the narco-boat strikes, while distracting from the two national guardsmen who were murdered by one of Biden’s Afghan “refugees”. Time for a refresher course on the color revolution playbook, which was written by swamp creature Norm Eisen: https://yuribezmenov.substack.com/p/norm-eisen-color-revolution-playbook
Thank you Yuri.
Matt, you may also want to check in with Mike Benz.
I can't agree with Matt's "2 sides" arguments or how the WH is supposed to behave in this moment. It assumes that we are all performing in good faith, for the good of our country and our citizens. We are not. That train left the station years ago, as we are now learning.
And a lot of our eye-opening occurred with the Twitter files that Matt authored, which seem like child's play in the context of those billboards in North Carolina now.
We are way past "When they go low, we go high." The left does not follow our rules of courtesy and fair play. The left, the hedge funds, intel agencies and NGOs that do its work want eternal global power. Our failed and thoroughly compromised media is doubling down on the lies that support this.
Agreed. It is disappointing to see Matt deciding that the both side's narrative is the best way to cover this or any other story. It is from Matt and Walter, among other sources on Substack, podcasts, and X, that we are all hyper aware of the gross dual standards and extreme bias of the news media. It seems Matt feels that it is his responsibility as a serious journalist to report this as fair as possible, which he obviously believes requires a both sides format, but in view of the overwhelming bias, unfairness, clear and obvious lockstep with the Democratic Party's every narrative, every strategy, that Trump is up against, and the extremely dangerous significance of the democrats political strategy to not only motivate protestors to openly fight our government attempts to enforce our immigration laws, and this new escalation of messaging our military and intelligence personnel to disobey the chain of command, it seems to me that the story needs to be about that, and not to feel some responsibility to play it as a both sides issue. The democrats lost a fair election. Their strategy since their loss has not been one that accepts the voter's decision, and to work on making that necessary changes to their policies that the American people desire, but instead, with tremendous assistance from the news media, have chosen to fight the fairly elected government with lies, spin, false narratives, and continuous propaganda, damaging the fragile democracy they so hypocritically claim to be protecting
If we needed Substack or X to tell us the media and the swamp use double standards, we would be pretty dumb. It's been obvious for decades, it's just more shameless now.
I don't find it disappointing that Matt is a fair, careful journalist who takes justified pride in accuracy and seeing a larger picture. It's one reason I trust his reporting.
I was admittedly one of the dumb ones. I believed 100% in what I heard on NPR and read in the NYT throughout Trump's first term. I believed RussiaGate completely. I was totally fooled. But my enlightenment, which occurred early 2020, I do feel I owe to Substack, and to Podcasts. I observe daily in my personal interactions with friends and family, that what you believe about current events, and politics, is primarily dependent on what your sources of news are. I hear the Dems talking points and narratives regurgitated to me all of the time, simply because the individual doing the regurgitation holds those beliefs because their news sources are the legacy media - their ability to sway public opinion is still a powerful tool of the DNC
It's true that one needs a diet of varied news sources, but seriously? One can read the lack of detail, the spin, the "activism," the substitution of personal bias for fact, without knowing a bit about other arguments.
When I wanted to know about the tax changes in the one Big Beautiful Bill, I didn't read the Times, WaPo, or "conservative" sites' takes - I went to the accounting and financial trades. That gave me fact without spin.
Mazel tov on your casting the blinders off - better late than never! Though I was seeing the pernicious substitution of opinion for fact about 50 years ago, in my teens.
The other option is to go straight to the text of the bill, along with going to the trades to help explain.
I stopped watching TV during the Iraqi Freedom crap. It was always about oil..
I stopped watch TV in 1985. Keep your wits about when all else fails. TV failed and I still have my wits.
Boy did you hit the nail on the head, and the root of the insanity. Dems can't accept fair elections results. Not 2000 Reps for 6 hours, like the J6 head cases, but tens of millions of Dems, for years. Nor will they accept policy rooted in decades old valid immigration law.
I too feel sorry for illegal immigrants in the country for decades without other crimes and family ties. That does not mean they are not legally deportable, and often in an expedited manner. Their current situations were caused by Dem Open Boarders, not Reps.
Then there is the blatant insanity. The New Yorker ran a sympathetic piece on a convicted murderer deported after 25 years in prison. Yes, now he is an old man. Who cares? He murdered an American, and yet his deportation is still a Trump sin? What type of mental illness is required to sympathize with the murderer , and not the dead American and their family?
Here's the deal. I yearn for civil discourse and true journalism, which is what I find in Matt. And in Matt and Walter. So I will become infuriated and moved to action when the WH lists Matt, Walter, Bari Weiss, the guys on 2-way, Mike Benz etc. as enemies of the state. Until then, I don't care that it may be unseemly to name names and point fingers at institutions and individuals who care not for civil discourse or journalism.
And I don’t care that he calls out reporters for being stupid, because many of their questions are, nor refers to a reporter as “piggy” for hogging time in the Q and A.
He called her by name, "Peggy", not piggy.
So many lies they seep in like a bloodstain.
I don't mind when he calls them stupid ( I am guilty of that). Calling fat pigs & such is really juvenile. I like most of what he does for the country, but I can't listen to him talk for more than 10 minutes..LOL
Thanks Ronda. I don't feel my experience with the news media is very different from a lot of folks that subscribe to Racket. Many of us were previous consumers of MSM news. Personally I subscribed to the NYT, and listened to NPR several hours a day. I volunteered at my local public radio station during fund drives and was a regular contributor. But they have changed so very radically. Call it TDS as the simplest reason, but the significance of the loss (not just here in the US but the entire western world it seems) of mainstream non-partisan, unbiased news sources cannot be overstated in terms of how it threatens our democracy. Remember "Democracy dies in darkness"? That is where we are now, only the legacy news media does not understand at all how much they have deliberately abandoned fair, honest, unbiased news reporting. There appears to be no limit whatsoever on how far they will go, what lies they will justify, if it is done as a part of the noble cause to destroy the president that the majority of Americans choose
Well said. I have intelligent, wonderful people who believe the MSM without question, it seems. But they have not yet let their minds open up to any other news options. That disappoints and concerns me.
We should always hear BOTH sides. We can take it & come to our own conclusions.
Best to have a top notch lie sniffer although a give a way from the lefties make it easy - 50+ news casters using the exact same language when reporting a supposed 'story'.
If one side says "The Holocaust was a hoax" I dont think thats a side we should be hearing. I wouldn't make it illegal but I wouldn't platform it.
Anne. Did you see Nicole Shanahan’s interview last week? She is the ex-wife of tech billionaire, Sergey Brin (Google co-founder). She clued us plebes in on how the other billionaire wives behave and give generously to left wing causes for the good feeling (and PR) it gives them. Perhaps it’s Soros plus many of these doyennes.
As I recall, billionaires supported Harris over Trump about two to one. I suspect the Harris supporters among the super-rich tended to be the ones who inherited the money; e.g., wives and children of the mutant geniuses.
How do you keep the money and not feel guilty about it? For example, instead of helping the poor (expensive), come out *in favor* of helping the poor (less expensive).
Yes!!!
Imagine the level of confusion required to believe hedge funds are "the left". That's the right, Anne. If you don't like them, good, now connect the dots.
Matt should be helping you. There are a lot of people here who need that help. Instead he just sails right past oceans of flat-out ignorance or else joins the chorus himself, pausing only to single out and sneer at the occasional commenter who has "read Howard Zinn". I honestly do not understand why.
I give you Soros Management Fund's investments in Rio Tinto as the Soros Open Society Foundation lobbied the Mongolian government to give Rio Tinto a better deal as they sought to extract copper. 60% to the Mongolian people with 40% going to Rio Tinto wasn't good enough.
Re: Zinn; Taibbi gives his take on him here; https://www.racket.news/p/thanksgiving-is-awesome?utm_source=publication-search
In short, it is one big, simplistic, black and white telling of our history that conveniently frames historical actions in a modern moral context, all while assuming the equally more insulting "noble savage" trope, as though all natives lived in blissful harmony and did not slaughter and enslave each other.
It's quit apropos that you share Zinn's propensity for black and white thinking and how you conveniently label WS funds as "right" and not "left". All while accusing others of being awash in "oceans of flat-out ignorance" as though you've never heard of ESG scores, or that wall street by and large donates heavily in favor of dems. And please don't come back with some semantical nonsense about what *really is* left or right.
Bottom line is, just give it a rest. Like Zinn, your type is really just as bad as the evangelicals in your holier than thou approach to others and dissenting thought. "There are a lot of people that need [our] help". You don't even see/hear it, do you?
You mean read, time pasted, and then move on into the next century.
Agreed! The both sides is premature. On its face, Venezuela is about narco terrorism. I suspect it's more like a bay of pigs. We don't know how much foothold our global enemies have there. That may be the true target.
Venezuela is about the oil, and countering Chinese influence there. Trump is re-asserting the Monroe Doctrine.
I'm okay with that. And I'm gonna go out on a limb here and speculate that anyone on a small boat with four $20,000 outboard motors probably isn't mackerel fishing
In re Venezuela, the big picture is much more than oil, or drugs. It does involve the Chinese and the Russians, as well as a horde of other bad actors. But at the core is a mission that will be seen in hindsight as the moment the West was saved from the greatest threat ever faced: election rigging on a global scale.
I beg everyone to read this article by Elizabeth Nickson at Welcome to Absurdistan, “The Electorate is Not a 50/50 Split: The Steal is On in 72 Countries
https://open.substack.com/pub/elizabethnickson/p/the-electorate-isnt-5050-the-real?r=595su&utm_medium=ios
It is also Cuba and Iran who are assisting Venezuela to smuggle weapons and terrorist into the US, right now it's Florida. Lot's of border property owned by foreign entities behind the curtains, so to speak.
I listened to her interview of the CIA whistleblower and book author. I'm not convinced they aren't a grand CIA psyop intended to create a reason to go to war with Venezuela. It's all too convenient as regards US policy. I didn't hear any convincing evidence these guys were legit.
We will own nothing & be happy...
Great response! Monroe Doctrine!
Yes check the Mile Benz the known fraud who lied about being “head of cyber” at state department when he was never hired by the state department, was transferred from a speech writer till at HUD as likely part of a punishment, has zero record of having any work with anything “cyber” there, and left his job at state department in something like 3-7 weeks.
Matt should definitely speak to that known fraud, his idiot MAGA readership would slurp up the slop.
Mike Benz, Deputy Assistant Secretary for International Communications and Information Policy
Bureau of Economic and Business Affairs, US State Department
He has also been a WH speechwriter and an attorney
He founded the Foundation for Freedom Online to further digital freedom around the world in the public sector.
He reads from Wikileaks and the recently released files from the FBI and the CIA via youtube.
Thank you for ignoring everything he said!
Thank you for completely ignoring everything I said
You think MAGA are the only idiots??? Please..
The US/ Israel abroad only follows the rules that benefit our politicians/ oligarchs. This often involves assassinations and bringing in people like Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, al Julani, etc. to destroy societies. And while often effective, such foreign policy is short-sighted.
And inevitably such methods always come home to domestic policies.
You outed yourself when you gratuitously through in Israel.
Bull...Israel can be criticized when necessary.
Thats not what you did. You made up an absurd lie and lumped the tiny country of Israel fighting an endless war of survival with the United States as if Israem strides the world like an evil colossus. That isnt criticism. Its anti-semitism. Own it.
This afghan was with the cia for 10 yrs eh? No chance he was mind fucked by the cia into a false flag op across the country is there? Interesting the seditious six were sniveling on queue with the psyop.
One asks. Who benefits?
What color is this revolution?
"Greige"
Typical fence-sitting. Not beige, not gray, kinda something in between.
I'm going hard for “opaque” and don't nit-pick about it not being a color.
Pepto pink
Sort of diarrhea colored. Everyone seems to be shitting themselves
“Our government moved into an extralegal zone over twenty years ago,…” WELL over twenty years ago. The AngloAmerican Empire doesn’t really care who is doing the day to day chores as long as the wealth extraction continues unobstructed.
(Rolls eyes)
What I want to know is …
Who has replaced lizard person Queen Elizabeth II as the secret head of the Anglo-American Empire?
She was just another functionary dancing to the tunes she was told to or else even more scandalous behavior by the inbreds comes out.
(Rolls eyes)
Wander over to Clu*sterf*ck Nation (James Kunstler). His take seems apt. Venezuela the font of CIA funding for decades.
I gather that, in Conspiracy-theory Land, a “color revolution” is when the (omniscient and omnipotent and diabolical) CIA overthrows a lovable, cuddly dictator.
I don't know. After hearing & seeing the retired CIA..I believe nothing they say..
I don't get the objection to deploying the National Guard to our cities to maintain order. In the aftermath of a hurricane or similar natural disaster, the Guard is routinely deployed to "stop looting." Isn't that what the Guard is doing in DC, or Memphis? Guaranteeing the safety and security of the citizenry in a de facto disaster zone? And with murders, carjackings, and other violent crimes apparently down significantly in those towns, I'd say the strategy was successful.
It’s against federal law to help people illegally cross the border, and it’s illegal to harbor them. Many of these “sanctuary” locales refuse to enforce the law, which would include cooperation with ICE. So, we end up with National Guard to fill the gap.
Stop attacking ICE agents & the NG will stop being there.
What "de-facto disaster zone"? In legitimate deployments the Governor or City ASKS for assistance. Elon Musk's juvenile data-pirate flunky getting his ass jumped in sketchy circumstances in DC does not a "disaster zone" make.
Although some people would tell us to accept high rates carjackings, murders, assaults, and a host of other crimes as "just a part of urban life," candor requires us to acknowledge that all too many of our big cities (including my hometown of Baltimore) have become de facto disaster zones in terms of violent crime and its impact on the safety and security of the citizenry. You really dispute that? If so, you are seriously misinformed.
It doesn't have to be this way. It is possible to live in a big city without the fear of being victimized by criminals, it just takes a real desire to do so. Trump certainly has the authority to deploy the Guard to secure DC, and possibly other cities, too, on the grounds of guaranteeing the security of the citizenry.
I, too, would prefer that local police do the job, but when they won't, or can't, it is reasonable for the feds to step in. I don't recall Gov Orval Faubus asking for federal troops to be deployed to Arkansas to secure the right of its black citizens to attend public schools. But Eisenhower did deploy the 82nd Airborne, and I think it was the right thing to do. Same principle applies here.
Your cheap shot at a victim of the pervasive street violence in DC is a pretty weak excuse for an argument. I'll take it as the best that you can do.
Not to mention Martha's Vineyard called them in to remove the illegals that DeSantis (I think) sent there. No one complained then.
Thanks for remembering Ike's righteous deployment. And for remembering the citizens of the cities who just want to live without fear. The Dems and msm seem to believe that criminals killing innocent citizens is better than National Guardsmen patrolling. I just don't get it.
Baltimore is a tough town. I grew up there, too. And when I moved to the District it was a TOUGHER town. These are places, imo, that got so badly knocked down by the riots in '68 (now THAT was "disaster-zone" worthy)- that they never managed to get back up. But it's not nearly as bad as I remember it from the 80's and early 90's. I'm intimately acquainted with the "pervasive street violence" of our nation's capitol. It doesn't come looking for you. You have to either be looking for it, or REALLY fuck up to find it. I'm not misinformed, to that point; you're just pearl clutching. And thinking that Trump is ordering in the jackboots to "protect the citizenry" as opposed to intimidating local government and a non-compliant population is either disingenuous or naive.
No, it's not me who is "pearl clutching," it is the street thugs grabbing the "pearls" off the necks of their victims.. Yeah, I know all about life in the big city, it is ruled by an undercurrent of fear that we have come to accept as normal. "Oh, but things were so much worse" in the 80s and 90s"--maybe true, but the fact that they were horrendous then doesn't mean that we have to accept that they are merely "bad" now... The numbers don't lie (although maybe they do, 'cuz DC has been cooking the books when it comes to murder, it seems).
So, street violence doesn't come to you "you have to come looking for it, or REALLY fuck up to find it." Congrats, that is the most outrageous example of victim blaming/victim shaming I have ever seen. Yeah, how dare those carjacking victims stop at a red light, when everyone knows you are supposed to just slow down and keep moving on through so the homies can't jump you.
And another thing: the National Guard are not "jackboots." The idea you would say such a thing when a twenty year old has just been gunned down on the street, doing her duty, is beyond pathetic. I guess you don't really understand the power pf words. Some shame is in order.
She wasn't "doing her duty"- she was put there by an irresponsible Governor and criminally corrupt President. She was just a kid following unwise orders. I feel terrible for her, and, frankly, I feel pretty bad for the guy who shot her. Victims of the American committment to perpetual war that I have opposed IRRESPECTIVE of the party affiliation of the administration advocating for (and profiting from) it. And let's be precise-- no, the NG are not the jackboots-- they were ordered in to "protect" the ICE and BP goons terrorizing the citizenry. THOSE are the jackbooted thugs.
"I feel pretty bad for the guy who shot her." Now THERE'S a really wise comment from an abject imbecile.
Yeah, I agree with the guy below, your comment is imbecilic. And excuse me, the late Sarah Beckstrom was doing her duty, as she was ordered to do, like any other member of the military. But your sympathies are with the monster who walked up and shot her in the head. Whew...
I suppose I should inform my son that he shouldn’t have left Chicago because Josh knows best. Life has gotten so ugly there that it breaks your heart to see. What an amazingly beautiful city, fun too. But that was then.
But we have seen at least one Governor and one Mayor refuse the deployment of the NG to their areas because they are apparently willing to have their citizens suffer unnecessarily, just to give the big middle finger to a President they hate with such intensity it boggles the mind.
Imagine what it must be like to be a beat cop in Chicago or Seattle or LA or Minneapolis and forced to witness a deliberate surrender to violence, looting, and shameless theft, just because your Mayor or Governor doesn't want to have anyone see you join forces with the feds. "Aaah . . . they're only looting a few hundred bucks worth of stuff. We have to wait until their theft adds up to a felony."
"Never mind those guys tossing Molotov Cocktails at the Immigration building. That's the feds' job anyway."
It's a wonder anyone ever enlists with the cops in these cities.
A "beat cop" like Derek Chauvin, for example?
Who?
Have you ever had your flunky ass jumped? Do you think this was the only crime committed that day/week/month?
He probably enjoyed it..
Although my ass would take exception to your "flunky" moniker, the answer is YES, and, in all probability, in very similar circumstances to those in which Musk's pubescent data-pirate found himself. Big cities have crime, especially if you go looking for it. 3 am. in Logan Circle counts (it was WAY worse back in the 90's btw.)
Oh, it was his fault. I understand where you're coming from now. If you're "juvenile" and "pubescent" and walking in the city, you deserve to get a free trip to the hospital. Progressive logic.
I would remind you that that little fucker stole your social security number and date of birth, along with all of your tax records from the first time you filed. And gave them to Elon Musk. Sweet dreams, sunshine.
Big Balls stole my Social Security number?
What would Elon Musk, the wealthiest man in the world, want with my social security and tax info?
How will this be any worse than bureaucrats, data pirates, and spy agencies from all over the world having this same info?
LOL. See Dan Kluver.
Tell me you don’t know Washington is the federal district without telling me you don’t know it’s the federal district.
Lived there for 13 years, my friend. you're in EVERYBODY'S jurisdiction in DC. "Street crime" exists where the various authorities allow it to exist. Trump putting the National Guard in DC has exactly NOTHING to do with public safety (and already got one National Guardsman from West Virginia killed, btw.)
Shut up, retard.
Well said. Your logic has vanquished me.
Logic?
You just claimed to have lived there then made shit up.
Muriel seems to be pretty happy with the results.
Like they did in Little Rock in the 1950s?
He wasn't the only one. Many federal workers had been carjacked & hurt. It was needed in DC..
Anyone intellectually honest who worked with Afghans, in Afghanistan, could have seen this coming a long time ago. My brother was fluent in Pashto and was one of those Americans training them. He went on a colossal rant to me about how pointless the whole thing was shortly before he was killed in action in 2008.
Our whole idiom of thinking we can turn every country into the US is idiotic. We absolutely have the right to defend our own borders and make our own rules about who gets to come in and who doesn't. But what goes on everywhere else isn't necessarily our business, and is certainly not worth sending our own people off to get killed over.
The US (CIA/military) does NOT go into other countries to spread democracy. Ar one level, do it to protect commercial interests (see Marine General Smedley Butler: “War is a Racket”), and at a deeper level, all wars are bankers’ wars. Politicians go along because they are very well- compensated, and the people making the big money can expand control at the expense of the plebes who die bc and are maimed.
I thought I was pretty cynical, but you have topped me.
I don’t want to sugar-coat it, but I’ve never read anything to suggest that WWII was a “bankers’ war,” not even German bankers. (Please correct me if I’m wrong.) “Regime change” has acquired a bad smell, but in the end that’s what we fought for in WWII; the fact that it took unconditional surrender and a decade of occupation to accomplish it means it’s not something to undertake lightly.
The problem, of course, is to distinguish the bankers’ wars from the necessary wars, which in real time is sometimes damned hard to do.
Every war, like any other emergency (or non-emergency), offers an opportunity for profit, but it is the genius of the market system that it makes resources become available when needed.
Smedley’s career is certainly one that would disillusion a person; I feel for him. But his recommendations, including that the army be confined to our soil and our navy to basically territorial waters, are over the top. When you can be attacked from ten thousand miles away, porcupining just doesn’t cut it.
I'm going out on a limb here because I haven't read any books on this perspective, but I believe the Germans viewed WWII as an attempt to unyoke themselves from bankers.
Note: Of all the Rothschild family banks in Europe the only one that went bankrupt was in Germany. The rest profited from that war.
Funny, because the Nazis were up to their eyeballs in bankers, here and abroad.
Well, if the Nazi aggression *was* instigated by German bankers, they probably lost their shirts.
They did.
Interesting. I suppose they might have felt that the crippling WWI reparations were to "bankers". I would call that an error.
I could go further back and ask about older wars, but I doubt that either Rick or Smedley Butler were talking about things like the Thirty Years War or the Crusades.
Not quite crippling. The reparations owed by Germany after the war could not be paid and France occupied part of Germany to get its coal. The 1924 Dawes Plan required France to leave Germany and Germany would be loaned about $200 million, primarily through Wall Street bond issues in the United States, overseen by a consortium of American investment banks, led by J.P. Morgan & Co. under the supervision of the US State Department. Germany benefited enormously from the influx of foreign capital. Once France was out, Germany used its coal for its steel plants to build arms for the next war. When the great depression hit no more payments from Germany occurred. By 1933, Germany had made World War I reparations of only one eighth of the sum required under the Treaty of Versailles, and owing to the repudiated American loans the United States in effect paid "reparations" to Germany.
No matter how senile Biden was and no matter how deranged Trump is, neither are the worst President this century. That honor belongs to the ignorant, arrogant, moronic George W. Bush, who was blessed with a silver spoon but also the reverse Midas Touch: everything he touched turned to shit.
Agreed.
I wish I could “like” this a million times!
Me too. I've always thought so.
All you gotta know is that no one in the media cares about Epstein anymore. Why is that?
It was a feint the entire time. There’s no there there.
Can’t believe I missed this angle to the story. We were all steered again to care about the next Current Thing and to forget about the extreme moral urgency of last week’s Current Thing at the same time.
Because they only screamed for release of the files when Trump opposed it. They don't want collusive Democrats exposed, do they?
Where were these concerns for the “laws of war” from MIC/IC press organs when the US was droning weddings and its own citizens in the Middle East? I have reservations about Trump potentially escalating to a regime change war in Venezuela, but I refuse to take directions from these amoral cretins.
They doth protest too much. What about targeting drug trafficking in the Caribbean is so anathema to them that they would become sudden converts to limits on executive power to conduct strikes abroad? I think it’s the same alliance of interests as always with the anti-Trump side: opportunism by partisan Democrats joined with a more nefarious protection of Deep State turf.
THank you Matt again, for your honesty. I do not envy you in trying to walk a tight rope between similar propgandizing on both sides. As you say yourself: it makes reporting a hell more difficult. But keep trying. It might seem outmoded but it's the right way.
All of this “Narrative” will be a moot point if we don’t get a grip on Islamists gaining power over government in this country. While we squabble and fight and threaten each other, they plan strategically. I loathe saying this but they’re far more clever than we give them credit for and they’re here for the long haul as Ilhan Omar stated, they’re not going anywhere.
As Dan Burmawi rightly pointed out, the Afghani who shot Sarah Beckstrom and Andrew Wolfe was acting from his teachings as a Muslim, but he isn’t part of the bigger plot. Muslims are
Doing well in the U.S. politically.
Mamdani didn’t go to the Oval Office to simply talk to Trump. He went there to signal to Muslims that this is where they are heading and look at how easy it is to enter past these nice, open society fools.
So, Matt don’t stop what you’re doing to highlight the lunacies. But let’s not allow it to distract us completely from what else is going on with far more dire consequences.
It's nice when one of y'all comes out and just admits what you're about. Somehow I don't think Matt will be responding to you, though. Maybe there's an anti-war leftist for him to shout down somewhere in here instead.
Dude have I ever once supported any war? Like ever? Millions of published words, thirty-five years - can you find one example?
Not that I'm aware of. I didn't say you did. Just that when you respond to someone here it's usually to shout down a leftist making a point of some kind and never to the, well, whatever our friend JAE here is. Or the many many many others like him.
I gripe a lot in these comments but I've read your stuff for decades, I have probably all of your books, I've done the reading and I'm here because I'm a fan. I know you're not pro-war, and I know you're not anti-muslim like JAE here or someone who thinks the MSM and hedge funds are “the Left” like several other commenters in this thread so far. I assume your views are pretty much close to mine on all those things and most other things, which is why I keep feeling the need to mention it when the comments are always full of rupert murdoch-pilled cable news consumers spewing the grossest ignorance unchallenged and that's just the new norm that elicits no comment or interest
Ha! There you have it. You’re worrying about what “y’all” is about. Wrong people to worry about. Thanks for making my point.
I think when you are dropping missiles on drug boats your intention to "kill them all" is pretty clear. Coddling criminals of any sort has been practiced and tolerated for far too long. Do I want another forever war? Hell no! But pretending we don't have criminals among us from drug cartels and from third world countries is no solution. Cleaning up a decades old mess is going to take time and by necessity be very difficult and dirty work.
Nobody has ever provided a shred of evidence that they are drug boats.
Well, you don't do deep sea fishing in cigarette boats with multiple large outboard motors on them.
Maybe you’re moving humans. Maybe not. Either way, there’s been zero evidence presented much less any court weighing in on any of it.
It’s as simple as this, the president points to a person or group, calls them terrorists without evidence or a trial or a fair hearing, and then kills them.
Then people who support the current admin cheer it on and tell everybody who opposes the criminal acts as terrorist supporters.
It’s a simple formula.
More than two outboard motors and you're fair game
Does that apply to Americans too or just dirty Venezuelans?
What American human traffickers are launching from Venzuela? And I see you're bringing race into it lol.
This isn’t anything new. It’s been going on forever and it’s a very pernicious and terrible practice. All you have to do to kill anyone anywhere is just consider them a terrorist.
Do you have eyes? They certainly were not fishing or leisure boats. I live in south FL. Pretty obvious when we see boats that run drugs
What if they were moving people? And should we also blow up American boats with more than one outboard motor? Just kill Americans without a trial or even investigation, just because it’s obvious, Marie?
Do tell.
You clearly have not seen those boats, have you.
Have you seen what is allegedly on those boats?
Perhaps you guys should read the history of the coast guard and how they’ve had to consistently change to adapt to the cleverness of drug smugglers. The submersibles are difficult to detect but pretty obvious to most that they aren’t fishing or leisurely enjoying a joy ride. They are small and compact , certainly not economical for human smuggling. There are multi levels of detection used to determine what these targeted boats are up to. We are in a war on drugs and those drugs are killing 100,000s young adults or more annually. I’m willing to make a major bet that this war on drugs has been going on for some time. People being killed, blown up during raids etc. but because DJT is running the show every microscopic event he does (like getting an MRI) hits the press. I’m surprised we aren’t discussing whether he has consistent bowel movements. I didn’t see shit about Obama literally droning Americans .
Unfortunately, andy boy is one of those fools who think you can't believe what you see.
We have been given no evidence of drugs being on these boats, which are in international waters.
This policy is a direct result of Obama droning hundreds of people, including at least one American and many not citizens of countries, with whom we were at war. How much proof did we see these were legitimate targets? We didn't. Obama labeled them terrorists, and someone fired.
It is Trump's speciality. Most of his policies are recycled Dem actions, or a direct result of previous Dem actions.
They should all be in prison or worse.
The administration and the War Department isn't required to vomit up evidence for every military action. Congress has the job of oversight, so you might want to write your reps and demand answers.
Hahaha. I guess you haven't seen the videos. That could be one of the most idiotic comments I've seen so far. As I said earlier...you are getting more and more stupid with every passing second.
You actually think this is about drugs, huh? Did you also think there were WMDs in Iraq
Yeah. The drug spelled o.i.l.
It's about drugs, human traficking, etrror of any and all sorts. I did think there were WMD's in Iraq. I wasn't the only one.
I believed it too...For a minute, now I trust none of them.
I still maintain that Saddam himself thought he had WMDs. If so, there was little hope for anybody outside figuring out he was wrong.
Also, 10 billion estimated recoverable oil next door to Venezuela in Guyana. Chevron and Exxon already there. Think about that next time you fill your tank.
But why can't we wait until they enter our waters to interdict them?
Because the Coast Guard usually can't catch their "fishing boats". And when they do, it doesn't seem to provide a whole lot of deterrence, does it?
When they close the airspace over Mexico, I might believe it is about drugs..
Or Colombia.
Just because the CIA found someone conditionally useful in-Situ doesn't mean they get invited to the house for Thanksgiving. So that is a non-starter. The truth is that Biden filled planes with God knows who and turned them loose in the USA. Are we surprised that some people essentially from the Taliban find things uncomfortable here in the USA??
The CIA sures turns up in a lot of places: Iran with Mossadeq, Russia-gate, “Don’t Give Up the Ship”, 2014 Ukraine, Drones…
When are we going to dissolve that infernal organization?
Really good question. As soon as Shumer (a Minority leader in the Senate) is feared by them by more than he fears the CIA.
What I remember most from those civilians that were there with planes they paid for to fly out US citizens - Biden state department was coordinating which planes to could fly out when. The civilians had passengers but were not allowed to take off unless they only took those okayed by the state dept. and not until the Afghans all got in the air.
Why did the Trump admin approve his asylum claim?
Because the staff in the agency that does this are utter fools. Trump didn't personally choose this guy. Some career staffer did.
Or perhaps the 'staff' is as most staff are - leftovers from the prior admin.
It is the ultimate indictment of our system that this answer is possible in the first place. When we finessed the unitary executive for the career civil service we made it all but impossible for elections to matter at all.
It's difficult for me to get all het up over the sight of National Guard patrolling our cities because I grew up in the 60's, when (if memory serves correctly), National Guard troops were frequently deployed to various US cities.
Yes, that would’ve been during the civil rights movement.
When I read Matt these days, I feel like I am reading someone from a bygone era, before the media actually declared itself to be an enemy of Trump and not obligated to any standard of objectivity. Media is now pure power struggle. Pretending otherwise seems naive, but “sweet”.
That's a large part of why I enjoy and trust Matt. He does, indeed, look to standards of an old fashioned cast. As do I. It's a mistake, always, to throw babies out with bathwater.
Standards of objectivity in the media are wonderful to hope for, but Trump is not a media figure. He is in a political battle and we should have no expectation that he be objective or fair in any way give this context (people are out to destroy him). Is he supposed to be an objective journalist? Standards of journalism have gone down the toilet and in a desperate political battle, it is foolish to expect any politician to be hands off the media when the media has defaulted on their job. Seems like Matt is comparing the media to a politician, expecting the latter to have a standard of objectivity (which has never existed) while the former has become entirely political twisting the truth into strange fantasies. Who wouldn’t want to have an objective fair media? What are the odds? What is to be done when the media are actively subversive? Trump has won several lawsuits against the media, to no effect.
I said nothing about Trump's anti-media shtick, which, being mere rhetoric from a politician, isn't terribly important.
But, if we jettison those rare journalists who actually hold standards, legitimate ones, we will have nothing worth reading in that area.
This is true, but all the contrasts in his article are between msm and Trump officials. Naturally, the Trumpists will resist the main stream narrative. Matt seems to think the anti-media narrative is crucial and sometimes threatening, thus very important. They are not bound by journalistic standards. Matt seems to be asking for some kind of consistency over time in media evaluating various “war crimes” potential. This is reasonable. This balance has to occur WITHIN the msm, even though lots of people look to other sources. So, in my opinion, the fault lies there. If Trump drives people so crazy that they cannot maintain a rational stance, they are lost. Matt has an evolving history of degrading Trump, from viewing him as a “clown” to more recently as a “scary” (he uses that term a lot) authoritarian. His struggle to be objective is difficult. I think it would be helpful for him to state some of his underlying assumptions. This is required to be objective, which is only a theoretical goal.
I think you give yourself away by using "degrading," rather than "criticizing," or another less loaded word.
Trump's actions since taking office this time are deeply disturbing to me, though I don't regret voting for him.
And if you've been listening, Matt has adjusted his views, and keeps doing so, as an honest and active mind does. I do that, too.
Excuse me for thinking writing a book about Trump being a “clown” is “degrading” rather and just “critical”. Matt has evolved but, in my opinion, he does not understand Trump. No one’s judgment is perfect. We all change. What did I give myself away as? I’m curious. I presume you know something about me now that you have seen what I am, as I gave myself away with my horrifying use of the term “degrading.” I must be hiding something which in your wisdom, you have penetrated. Wow I am in awe of your honest active mind.
“Donald Trump just wants to ignore laws and start wars like every other president.” What? Didn’t DJT campaign on a platform of “no more stupid wars?” This is classic neo Matt Taibbi: condemn Trump in the most mealy-mouthed low level manner within a “everybody does it” context so he doesn’t lose MAGA subscribers but is still on record of objecting to (sort of) a disturbing and likely illegal Trump act.
"Of course I don't support it, but" is the new Taibbi formula.
Just try to imagine any heinous thing the authoritarian right (donkey and elephant) could do right now that Taibbi wouldn't respond to with something along the lines of, "I always oppose this kind of thing and always have, but it's fine". I can't.
It’s a legitimate observation. Lately Matt’s been using the “not comfortable” phraseology, unfortunately.
I’m a big Matt Taibbi fan, and by all means, alienate the MAGA believers here. Many people voted for Trump only because it was impossible to vote for Harris, it’s worth remembering.
I would hazard a guess that a lot of the MAGA base have a similar, “not comfortable”, feeling. As you rightfully point out though and as always seems to be the case, our elections always seem to be a choice of "the lesser of two evils".
There's no point if there is no non-authoritarian alternative. Pissing in the wind. The Democrats have demonstrated they know how to be just as authoritarian when it's their turn. If futile argument is your goal, more power to you. I'd like to figure out how best to weather the storm.
I agree with you. I enjoy MTs take on things, it makes me shift positions often. And can agree that Harris was not it. But I can never vote for DJT, and have a hard time respecting anyone who does.
Correct. Notice how he had ZERO vitriol in the article for those who supported BOTH the illegal strikes against Islamic terrorist targets under Obama AND those under Trump? That’s because those people are called “Trump supporters” and make up the majority of his idiotic, strong-man loving, troglodytic modern audience.
If you keep calling me names I'll have to conclude that you're just a run-of-the-mill retard
Of course he/she/it is.
Do you make up the majority of his audience or are you in the minority? I didn’t call you any names, in fact, I myself am a member of his audience. I have to actually say “not all Trump supporters, but most” I guess?
You forgot the WaPo standard "....if true...."
I make up the majority of me. I don't care what you think.
PS---You missed the joke
And what war did he start during his first term in office?
Sorry Matt, but this seems like a giant lot of well padded fence straddling. Senator Kelly, who is one of my senators, should be recalled and tried for sedition. You can do better.
I don't think a case can be made for sedition; however, those Senators in the video and the DOJ may want to take note of Section 2387, which establishes the criminality of attempting to persuade military personnel away from doing their duty.
It's rather wonderful, of course, that it is also criminal to facilitate illegal immigration, and under Biden we saw soldiers doing exactly that. Someone should ask Senators Slotkin and Kelly whether those orders should have been refused, as they were clearly illegal.
Correct. The language of that statute is clear.
Admirably clear - I for one wish all legislation were equally so.
Like those TV clips where they just opened the border fence and let them flow through.
Yes. We all saw soldiers committing the crime. Perhaps they should have refused the illegal orders? I am sure all the Democrats would have applauded (/sarc).
We're a "rules-based" order, Matt, not a law-abiding country. And the "rules" are made, adjusted, and broken to advance the interests of the most powerful entities, supported by a SCOTUS that's corporate-friendly.
As you yourself one wrote, powerful people don't have to evade the law. They make and remake the laws to make their corruption legal. And that's true domestically and internationally.
So the "law" or the AUMF is twisted to make even vigilante acts "legal." Don't like it--too bad.
Sorry, the AUMF has been "twisted" since it was first force-fed to the American people over twenty years ago.. Turns out, if you give Presidents open-ended power to attack our "enemies," they will use it, both Republicans and Democrats. But yeah, when Obama did it, it was good, right?
Nope. It was never "good." It was always an abdication by Congress.
Notice how you and Matt only care about the hypocrites who supported the illegality under Obama but oppose it under Trump, but neither of you mention the people who supported BOTH sets of illegal strikes? Those people are called Trump supporters.
They support any and all U.S. violence because it’s justified violence. It’s justified violence because the U.S. is the one doing it.
You find hypocritical liberals all over, but nobody seems to notice or care about the legion of idiot Americans who support all illegal strikes all the time. Those people can be found in one camp - the Trump camp.
You’re completely wrong. Whether he deserved those votes or not a sizable chunk of Trump’s voter base is antiwar. I covered this early in his first campaign; the number of returning pissed-off soldiers made up bigger and bigger portions of his crowds as 2016 went on. The campaigns of people like Lindsey Graham flatlined because of their pro-war rhetoric that year and Trump got massive numbers of votes last year because of Ukraine (and even Gaza, despite his promises to be an even bigger supporter of Israel than Biden). This is the classic snobbish, cosmopolitan, wrong take on Trump’s supporters - that they’re monolithic uneducated racist Yahoos. They’re not. It’s a patchwork of all kinds of different voters, some of whom are antiwar/isolationist as a rule (eg the former Ron Paul voters). This is like saying all Democrats are pro-war, when that really can only be said about the party. This troll act is tiresome.
I was not making a statement about all Trump voters. I never said “all Trump voters” or “all” of anybody, you’re simply attacking a straw man argument that is easier to defeat than what I actually said. I am specifically saying that the Trump camp has more people in it who supported both Obama’s acts under the AUMF and Trumps acts than any other political organization or group. Further, whether you identify that group as being in the Trump camp or something else, you never criticize them, you focus obsessively on liberal hypocrites instead of those who consistently support war crimes and illegal wars, people like Marco Rubio for example. He’s a figure who depicts to a fucking “T” exactly the Trump camp I’m talking about. Supported the wars then, supports them now, actually runs the administration largely.
Of the people who supported the war on terror AND who support all of Trump's current acts of war in Iran, Venezuela or wherever else, they nearly universally but certainly mostly, reside in the Trump camp.
That isn’t to say that there aren’t a large amount of people who voted for an anti-war president in Trump. Many of them now feel completely cheated and lied to, by the way.
This isn’t a cosmopolitan viewpoint, it is one that doesn’t coddle the Trump camp by pretending they are majority anti-war or have concerns about presidential overreach when it comes to violence overseas.
Please, tell me with a straight face that the Democrat party or any other U.S. political organization/group has more people who supported acts of war under Obama and Trump than the current Trump coalition, (not just his voters but the people he actually put into power like Rubio.) Please name them since I’m so wrong and naive and cosmopolitan and you are so clear-eyed and in touch with all Americans.
So “the people who supported BOTH sets of illegal strikes? Those people are called Trump supporters” doesn’t mean all Trump supporters? That’s not a lazy generalization? Lol. Way to unmask yourself.
No, in reality those people are called “THE MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX” and we are all getting played— AGAIN.
"Those people are called Trump supporters" is meant to convey that if one were to draw a Venn diagram of the people who support both sets of strikes, the vast majority would fall under supporting Trump today.
It is to say that "The group of people who unflinchingly support US violence overseas are called Trump supporters" not that "All people who are Trump supporters are people who support US violence overseas." The majority of the first group are Trump supporters and reside in the GOP, so that's what I call them. Not all Trump supporters have this stance, obviously. But if a majority of a group supports Trump, why is it wrong to call them Trump supporters?
If your contention is that this group does not majority support Trump and reside in the GOP, who do they support and where do they reside politically? The Democrat party? Somewhere else?
The majority of X are Y so I call them Y. That does not mean all Y are X. I have attempted to stress this concept in multiple comments on this post specifically conceding that not all Trump supporters are like this and that isn't even the point I am trying to make, yet here you are insisting that it is while completely ignoring the actual point I have repeated over and over - your ire for those, like Marco Rubio ect, who aren't liberal hypocrites but consistently support such wars is essentially totally absent in your coverage for at least about a year.
This is a completely reasonable critique, it is based on actual reality not TDS or some kind of emotional grudge against one party or the other, and is not "trolling" as much as you may see it that way. Though I suppose trolling is in the eye of the trolled? I would hope you would engage with my actual argument, but instead you haven't. Perhaps *you* are trolling *me*?
Matt, thanks for helping me on the lift with this...
👍 I’ve voted for Ron and Rand in primaries more often than I’ve voted for Trump. Voted for JD for senate…Trump keeps going the way he is and it’ll be mighty mighty hard for JD to get my vote in ‘28. I’ll just go back to voting LP for them to keep ballot access😶
Yeah, but that’s because HE CAMPAIGNED on being AGAINST the forever wars— but it looks like here we go again, huh? I’m glad we found a country to invade with some oil reserves, for a change (ahem).
You are clueless josh. Perhaps the president knows things you don't. Or does that ever happen, you not knowing everything?
Oh please!
He works for us, and if he has some secret info on Venezuela that will justify a regime change, he needs to share it with us. I'm tired of the government treating us like a bunch of saps, who can be swayed with certain words or phrases like "terrorist" or "narco-terrorist" into supporting whatever stupid military shenanigans they come up with.
Is this the guy in the cheese hat at the airport?
Andrew, the fallacy--one of them, anyway--in your argument is the assumption that these are "illegal strikes." As Matt points out, they are legally authorized under the open-ended AUMF, which gave the President very broad powers to launch limited strikes against anybody deemed a terrorist enemy. The strikes may be ill-considered, morally wrong, etc., but they are not "illegal."
For the record: I was opposed to the AUMF when it was adopted as the Declaration of Endless War which it quickly became. I'd like to see it repealed, along with The Patriot Act. Your stereotyping of "the Trump camp" is putting blinders on your ability to see the complexity of this time in American history. Maybe try removing them.
{{{YES}}}
From The International Criminal Court:
Article 8 (2) (c) (iv) War crime of sentencing or execution without due process
Elements
The perpetrator passed sentence or executed one or more persons.58
Such person or persons were either hors de combat, or were civilians, medical personnel or religious personnel taking no active part in the hostilities.
The perpetrator was aware of the factual circumstances that established this status.
There was no previous judgement pronounced by a court, or the court that rendered judgement was not “regularly constituted”, that is, it did not afford the essential guarantees of independence and impartiality, or the court that rendered judgement did not afford all other judicial guarantees generally recognized as indispensable under international law.59
The perpetrator was aware of the absence of a previous judgement or of the denial of relevant guarantees and the fact that they are essential or indispensable to a fair trial.
Unless the AUMF in itself is unconstitutional and all of those strikes were illegal despite the veneer of “authorization.”
Please tell me which political organization/movement/group has more people in it that supported both sets of strikes, legally and morally than the current “Trump camp” because I’d be genuinely curious to know who they are. The liberals are hypocritically calling out illegal acts, but others are actually supporting the acts.
I suppose it is a legalistic game of semantics whether or not something that was “authorized” as “legal” was actually illegal if the “authorization” in itself was unconstitutional.
Andrew, the Supreme Court has not, to my knowledge, ruled in the constitutionality of AUMF because lower courts have been reluctant to intervene in what they have deemed (rightly or wrongly) to be a political question between the legislative and executive branches. SO, no "semantics" here, the AUMF is both legal and constitutional as of this morning. But again, that does not make it right.
Your concern about whether more Dems or Republicans support these strikes seems entirely hypothetical and not very important... Today, I'd argue that the Dems are at least as much the party of Endless War as the Trump Republicans... Don't forget Joe Biden would have funded the Ukraine War without even saying the word "peace"... And don't forget, "the Trump Camp" is full of people like me who are former lifetime Dems.. Again, take off the ideological blinders and dare to see the world as it is today. You might be amazed.
Do you disagree that a Venn diagram that shows who supported all of the acts done under the AUMF both 20 years ago and today would show them falling under the Trump Camp circle or do you just regard that as largely unimportant?
I believe that they do fall in the Trump camp and I do believe it is important if the majority of the supporters of the current administration in power have a track record of universal support for U.S. violence overseas essentially every time they occur. But I generally agree that there is no group who hold political power who consistently oppose warfare and meddling overseas.
I voted for Trump twice, and support neither his strikes on these boats, nor Obama's gleeful expansion of Bush II's drone warfare. I didn't support the drone strikes when they were happening, and nothing I have seen has changed my mind.
Good, I applaud you unironically, but that isn’t true about the majority of Trump supporters. More to my point, the Trump camp has the largest amount of people who did the opposite of you and supported all the illegal actions. If you were to draw a Venn diagram of who supports both sets of illegal strikes they would occupy the “Trump camp” circle more than any other political group.
Thank you. May I know on what you base the assertion? I do think it's likely true that more Republican voters support and supported all these actions, and I disagree with them quite strongly. But it's at least consistent - is that really worse than the hypocrisy of lauding the Obama killing machine and excoriating Trump? I wouldn't think it is, but your view may differ . . .
Your are being played by Andrew.
I base it on that liberals currently oppose some of this purely for political reasons while most Trump supporters I’ve seen or talked to basically support this and have no issues with it because they follow Trump essentially no matter what.
I think that both are forms of supporting international imperial tyranny by the U.S. aimed at different flavors of political factions with slightly different ideologies that both ultimately justify any and all U.S. violence overseas.
Which is worse? Hard to say. I’d say that doing it openly is at least more honest, and perhaps allows for the opportunity for foreign actors to align themselves in a bloc against the U.S. without any issue that they have to deal with the pretense that the U.S. respects international law or the sovereignty of nations. With that being so clear, global powers will be more easily able to unite against U.S. malfeasance.
You clearly have no first hand knowledge of Trump supporters or what drives them.
You know, I had a very wise woman tell me one time, when you’re pointing a finger at someone point three back at yourself. A mirror would be a good call for you right about now.
When did I last support American aggression against a foreign nation?
Point five fingers at me. The answer is still “never.”
Hey Andrew, I just viewed your page. There’s a whole lot of aggression on there.
Anything in particular you’d like to discuss? Would you like to discuss my article I wrote? I promise I wasn’t aggressive towards anybody but the FBI.
https://open.substack.com/pub/andrewdolgin/p/911-and-the-dancing-israelis-refuting?r=8yze6&utm_medium=ios
Trump will never get an honest review by the MSM. Is he doing anything that his predecessors have not? I'm fine with our military defending our borders, blowing up boats bringing illegal drugs into our country, and supproting police in various unruly cities. Even Muriel Bowser has been supportive of those efforts after they were proven to help. My tax dollars at work protecting regular folks.
As far as these irresponsible "seditious six", exactly what are you trying to do here? I'm sorry, but my increasingly cynical outlook on politics and power lead me to dark places. They are definitely trying to undermine our current President. Why? I've come to beleive the Deep State is very real, and nothing the voters do will change anything, short of a civil war. I saw the term used "Cold civil war", and that is where we are now. Families torn apart by a media that just lies and inflames tensions between the sides.
The future is not looking very rosey at the moment.
There is, fortunately, nothing remotely illegal about trying to undermine the President, an offense which would put a significant fraction of our country in jail. There is a long, long continuum between a drunk mouthing off at the barroom CNN broadcast and a cabal of conspirators stabbing Caesar in the Forum. Those six idiots might be past the midpoint, they might even be 95% of the way there, it there’s still a long ways to go.
(That said, of course there’s a Deep State and of course we’re in a Cold Civil War. We are now called upon to prevent it from turning Hot, and supporting fact-based journalism is a vital part of that. The brinkmanship that says things can’t get any worse and all we can do is ensure that our side wins is…how we got here.)