Thanks for this. I should say I've talked to a number of people from this world, and I think as with any venture you get people of all types in any project. Some are sincere. A lot are just ignorant. GEC was originally designed to address ISIS recruitment, and its mission took a sharp turn in an unexpected direction almost immediately, w…
Thanks for this. I should say I've talked to a number of people from this world, and I think as with any venture you get people of all types in any project. Some are sincere. A lot are just ignorant. GEC was originally designed to address ISIS recruitment, and its mission took a sharp turn in an unexpected direction almost immediately, which led to a lot of bad decisions that may or may not have been by design - or may have just "rhymed" with certain general political tendencies, to use their terminology.
"A sharp turn in an unexpected direction almost immediately." Once again, given all we have learned was the sharp turn really unexpected? I may be more cynical than most but that is the safest way to bet in the current environment.
Getting sloppy in your opposition is worse than doing nothing.
And, if you trust Matt's reporting on this topic, I'm a bit surprised you don't trust his direct response to your concern. Don't you think he might actually have done his research?
It's possible to trust his reporting but disagree with his conclusions. In both this topic and all the russiagate work he has pointed out what was incorrect but never seems to get around to pinpointing who was behind it all. Over at the site the conservative tree house this tendency to pull punches has also been noticed.
Nobody is behind "it all". That framing basically presupposes a centralized conspiracy. In reality, sometimes things just turn out bad.
It seems like your disagreement with Matt's conclusions boils down to your willingness to speculate and jump to conclusions, versus his reliance on actually investigating and talking to people who would know.
Remember, willingness to trust in a comfortable and simplistic narrative is what allowed us to arrive at this point in the first place. Cynicism might feel good, but it's a heuristic, and placing your trust in a heuristic is never the start of a good process.
Why do you insist on shilling this no-name blog? And why weren't your employers smart enough to stick to just 1 sock puppet? It kinda blows the game when you have multiple people talking up the same site.
My "employers", lol. Your trolling is laughable. The CTH site is a gold mine of information for those willing to open their eyes. Clearly you prefer ignorance. It's your choice.
Good of you Matt to read these comments as I know it helps you get different points of view. I support your characterization of Obama and not pointing to him just yet (as much as I disagreed with his policies) as doing so would subject you to even more ridicule as a far right hack.
"unexpected direction" strikes me as a very generous interpretation. Concentrating power is always in Big Gov's personal interest, so it was a natural outcome of the original mission.
ISIS had very, very few recruits in the US (more in Europe). The original mission was arguably fake.
In what sense does "Big Gov" have personal interests?
And everything is "arguably fake". In case you didn't notice, though, the U.S. went a *teensy* bit overboard in the "post-911" era fight against Islamic extremism. It seems to me that you're retrofitting the current political climate *onto things that happened a decade or so ago... in context of the time it happened, "fighting ISIS" makes perfect sense as a motivation.
Good intentions don't protect government programs and powers from corruption and abuse. By taking the paranoid cynical view that bad outcomes suggest bad intentions, you're obscuring one of the most crucial political lessons of this quarter-century.
This typically happens with government programs. They grow beyond anyone's wildest imagination and undergo mission drift. Whether "malfunction or design", the result is the same. We need to hold the government to the same standards we do the private sector.
Don’t want to cite the CIA cliché, but USIA -formally USIS - was under its watch as during the Cold War. Many in it as well were sincere & apropos nothing favored summer villas in Croatia. The Adriatic San Tropez
Thanks for this. I should say I've talked to a number of people from this world, and I think as with any venture you get people of all types in any project. Some are sincere. A lot are just ignorant. GEC was originally designed to address ISIS recruitment, and its mission took a sharp turn in an unexpected direction almost immediately, which led to a lot of bad decisions that may or may not have been by design - or may have just "rhymed" with certain general political tendencies, to use their terminology.
"A sharp turn in an unexpected direction almost immediately." Once again, given all we have learned was the sharp turn really unexpected? I may be more cynical than most but that is the safest way to bet in the current environment.
Why jump to conclusions?
Getting sloppy in your opposition is worse than doing nothing.
And, if you trust Matt's reporting on this topic, I'm a bit surprised you don't trust his direct response to your concern. Don't you think he might actually have done his research?
It's possible to trust his reporting but disagree with his conclusions. In both this topic and all the russiagate work he has pointed out what was incorrect but never seems to get around to pinpointing who was behind it all. Over at the site the conservative tree house this tendency to pull punches has also been noticed.
Nobody is behind "it all". That framing basically presupposes a centralized conspiracy. In reality, sometimes things just turn out bad.
It seems like your disagreement with Matt's conclusions boils down to your willingness to speculate and jump to conclusions, versus his reliance on actually investigating and talking to people who would know.
Remember, willingness to trust in a comfortable and simplistic narrative is what allowed us to arrive at this point in the first place. Cynicism might feel good, but it's a heuristic, and placing your trust in a heuristic is never the start of a good process.
Of course someone is behind it. What on earth is your problem? Try reading this:
https://theconservativetreehouse.com/blog/2023/02/20/twitter-files-matt-tiabbi-sniffing-around-the-senate-intel-committee-connection-to-manipulation-of-social-media/#more-243524
Why do you insist on shilling this no-name blog? And why weren't your employers smart enough to stick to just 1 sock puppet? It kinda blows the game when you have multiple people talking up the same site.
Here is another article you should read from that site. You might actually learn something.
https://theconservativetreehouse.com/blog/2023/03/04/people-behind-biden-announce-creation-of-formal-national-surveillance-state-yet-no-one-seems-bothered/#more-243961
Dwhy learns nothing. He just trolls the site. New inputs mean nothing.
My "employers", lol. Your trolling is laughable. The CTH site is a gold mine of information for those willing to open their eyes. Clearly you prefer ignorance. It's your choice.
Good of you Matt to read these comments as I know it helps you get different points of view. I support your characterization of Obama and not pointing to him just yet (as much as I disagreed with his policies) as doing so would subject you to even more ridicule as a far right hack.
Great work.
Are you implying that Matt paces out his criticisms of Obama, as some kind of "boil the frog" tactic to duck media blowback?
Maybe you think that's a smart tactic, but to me your comment is just an insult to Matt's journalistic integrity.
"unexpected direction" strikes me as a very generous interpretation. Concentrating power is always in Big Gov's personal interest, so it was a natural outcome of the original mission.
ISIS had very, very few recruits in the US (more in Europe). The original mission was arguably fake.
In what sense does "Big Gov" have personal interests?
And everything is "arguably fake". In case you didn't notice, though, the U.S. went a *teensy* bit overboard in the "post-911" era fight against Islamic extremism. It seems to me that you're retrofitting the current political climate *onto things that happened a decade or so ago... in context of the time it happened, "fighting ISIS" makes perfect sense as a motivation.
Good intentions don't protect government programs and powers from corruption and abuse. By taking the paranoid cynical view that bad outcomes suggest bad intentions, you're obscuring one of the most crucial political lessons of this quarter-century.
This typically happens with government programs. They grow beyond anyone's wildest imagination and undergo mission drift. Whether "malfunction or design", the result is the same. We need to hold the government to the same standards we do the private sector.
Yep, then Obama and Holder decided that the right was more violent than ISIS, and turned the security apparatus against his political enemies.
Don’t want to cite the CIA cliché, but USIA -formally USIS - was under its watch as during the Cold War. Many in it as well were sincere & apropos nothing favored summer villas in Croatia. The Adriatic San Tropez