The Media Industry

And here is the same guy calling for regime change before his "Let Assad Win" piece



Regime Change Required to Achieve Our War Aims in Libya - Commentary
July 15, 2011 by Max Boot

“This would not be an issue if President Obama were willing to recognize that, War Powers Act or not, we really are at war.” ​

ps - FWIW, Boot was born Russian

 

Several libs that I know who wanted out of Syria now are mad at Trump for leaving. Should I remind them of their Max Boot moment?

 

Yeah I cant say with any certainty if that lower headline was verbatim or not. But the sentiment expressed is certainly correct. Dude flips flops all over the place.

 

If anybody is upset that the US is now no longer fighting along side the interests of Al Qaeda and ISIS, you are a traitor. Anybody writing articles upset about US troops leaving Syria is upset that the US is no longer aiding and abetting Islamist terrorist organizations. I get it. Obama started it all. It is his blood stained, traitorous legacy.

 

Here's my question from a Constitutional perspective: Did Congress declare war?

Here's my question from a personal perspective: What if your kid was over there?

Here's my question from a strategic perspective: What are we fighting for and what does "Mission Accomplished" look like?

Here's my question from an artistic perspective: "War. What is it good for?"

 

Yet another media person caught making up 'fake news'
He mocked Trump and his voters, making up wholly fabricated stories and people
Now admits he is sick and needs help, which probably goes for most of them

"German magazine Der Spiegel has fired one of its top journalists after it discovered he had fabricated more than a dozen stories in recent years, including an article about Trump supporters in a small Minnesota town.

"I'm sick and I need to get help,” Claas Relotius, who was CNN International's Journalist of the Year, told Der Spiegel. The fabrications were discovered after a colleague working with Relotius on a story about the U.S.-Mexico border raised suspicions about his reporting.

One of the made up stories, “ In a small town,” was billed as "a month with the people who pray for Trump on Sundays" and described Fergus Falls, Minnesota, as a typical rural town that helped propel President Trump to the White House in 2016 - though he just fell short in Minnesota.

Relotius reported false information about several of the town’s residents — or completely made up people — including that the city administrator did not want a female president and was a virgin, that a restaurant waitress with kidney disease was struggling to afford treatment under Obamacare, and that local students visiting New York visited Trump Tower instead of the Statue of Liberty. ...."​

Journalist who mocked Trump supporters in fabricated story admits: ‘I’m sick’

 

Does the author of articles typically choose the headline? I understood that to be the Editor or Publisher's role.

 

And that's what kills me about the press. They want to promote themselves as heroes of the people while they are really some of the biggest whores out there. clicks, clicks, clicks, clicks...whatever it takes to get my clicks.

 

Seattle Horn and Longest Horn, are you good with the US fighting along side the interests of Al Qaeda and ISIS in Syria?

Those 2 organizations were the ones described as "rebels" and "moderates" by our media and military establishment. Don't be deceived. Leaving Syria is the only good decision that can be made.

 

Just remember who her "dad" is.

 

No. The United States hasn't declared war since 1942. Congress has essentially delegated its war-making authority to the White House within limited (or supposedly limited) parameters. Is that constitutional? That's something people have been arguing over for decades.

We can't judge military action on that basis, because it we did, we'd never engage anybody. Japan would still occupy East Asia and dominate the Pacific, and Nazi Germany would control everything from the Atlantic Ocean to the Ural Mountains. We have a military for a reason, and we have to mage the decision to use it objectively, not subjectively.

We're there to destroy ISIS while keeping Assad (and therefore Vladimir Putin and Iran) from controlling the area. I don't think that's the right way to handle the situation. I would prioritize destroying ISIS with Russia first, try to control as much territory as we can, and then negotiate a deal with Putin on a post war settlement. But the current policy is still better than abandoning the mission altogether and letting the eastern gateway to Europe and NATO be controlled by Russia and Iran. It's a major victory for them.

War is an ugly thing, but it's better than having guys like Adolf Hitler, Josef Stalin, or their modern equivalents running the world.

 

ISIS is our allies in Syria, only except in the areas where we are fighting along side a Kurdish group. It is ISIS and Al Qaeda that are fighting against Bassad and it has only been them. If you prioritize fighting ISIS then you will be in effect helping Assad. But the best role is to get out. The US shouldn't be in control of Syria. Syria should be in control of Syria. Iran and Russia are actually East of Europe and have every right to be involved in trade in their region of the world.

The US doesn't need to be a global empire. It's too expensive and too bloody. Let's get out and cut the Federal government's budget, so that we can pay our own bills.

 

So CNN's "Journalist of the Year" and Der Speigel's designated "fake news" specialist may face criminal charges in Germany.

"The German reporter Claas Relotius, accused by top news magazine Der Spiegel of faking stories, could now face embezzlement charges.

Der Spiegel says it is filing a criminal complaint alleging he solicited donations for Syrian orphans from readers with any proceeds going to his personal account. ..."
​

Would be nice to see one of these liars forced to walk the plank. But its hard seeing the Germans having the guts to do the right thing. Had the guy written lies about Obama, he would probably be getting the Dr. Mengele treatment.

Der Spiegel 'fake news' reporter could face charges

 

Nor does the US taxpayer need to keep paying for the national defense of all our allies.

 

Here was the WAPO before Trump said he would withdraw troops. Now, of course, they think he has gone rogue

"U.S. troops will now stay in Syria
indefinitely, controlling a third of the
country and facing peril on many fronts" ​

https://www.washingtonpost.com/grap...n-syria/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.01b3ce471cda

 

The gross unfairness of how anybody on the left does not even have to pretend to care about consistency anymore is what galls me the most.

 

It's whatever the media tells them to think from moment to moment. Just a few years ago the democrats wanted a wall as well. Now it's "orange man bad".

 

When "consistency" equates to media entities not being able to print multiple viewpoints then you know education has failed in some capacity. Always question the agenda of the author, whether it be a journalist or JoeFan.

 

Or SeattleHusker

 

Certainly! I sincerely wish you and your family a happy holiday.

 

And I wish you and yours the same. We can continue to disagree here, but many, many things in life transcend political differences. Family is foremost among them. All the best to you and yours, Seattle.

 

No, it isn't, but people's arguments tend to fall halfway between what it actually says and what they wish it said.

 

I don't think it's constitutional either (depending on the specifics), but the judiciary hasn't been willing to force the issue. And neither party cares. Personally, I think the Presidents like having the power, and Congress likes not having the responsibility.

If I had to draw the line, I'd say that the President has the inherent power to defend the country from attack. If someone attacks the US, it doesn't take an act of Congress to shoot back. However, if the President wants to go further than self-defense (meaning attack the adversary especially if it means deploying troops even for a brief period), Congress should have to declare war.

 

I assume you’re referring to the 29 members of our NATO treaty. Are you operating under the assumption they owe us money or perhaps you’re dissatisfied with the terms of the 2014 President Obama NATO agreement to increase their share of defense spending? Or are you addressing the broader cost of projecting strategic power in the Korean Peninsula, Germany, Italy?

Wales Summit Declaration issued by the Heads of State and Government participating in the meeting of the North Atlantic Council in Wales

 

Long
Which NATO member increased their share after the Obama agreement?
when did they send more and how much did they send?

 

21 of the 29 NATO member states increased their spending percentage of their GDP between 2014 and 2018. Two of them, Romania and Latvia, doubled their spending.

The United States is one of the eight NATO members to decrease their spending percentage of their GDP over that same time frame.
https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/pdf_2018_07/20180709_180710-pr2018-91-en.pdf

 

Isn't the amount each nation gives supposed to be based a specific formula based on gross national income.
IIRC most of the nations did not come close to their agreed upon percentage. Again IIRC only 4 of the NATO nations paid their agreed share in 2016
So much for your thinking Obama did squat to improve the nations' contributions.

Only AFTER Trump did many nations announce they would start contributing more. Not sure if Germany is one.
As far as the US now giving less, Are you saying that is a bad thing?
Didn't we pay a larger than necessary amount for years?

 

Media makes fool of themselves....again. Sexton on Media's Coverage of Iraq Trip: 'Trump Derangement Syndrome Has No Boundaries or Borders'

 

Yes, 2% is the target

Yes. Most all were over 2% at the height of the cold war, but by 1998, only a few were at 2%.

Yes, very few have met the 2%, but the 2004 Bush goal was 2%. Obama agreement was to reach 2% by 2024.

No. If you examine member nation defense budgets since 2011, you will see members spending increases like France, who is spending about 5% more this year than last year, but are not spending 2%. More like 1.86% IIRC Are you telling me that Macron is spending more now because of Trump?

The US doesn't give anything NATO. Our defense budget is a percentage of our GDP, voted on our elected officials, just like other NATO members. And yes, we spent a bunch of money on Iraq, and it wasn't popular with NATO after WMD UN speech was fact checked.

 

You guys are both sorta right and sorta wrong. Obama and Trump both leaned on Europe to boost their defense budgets, and both had some degree of success. However, the biggest cause of the defense hikes was Russian activity in the Ukraine and Eastern Europe - not anything Obama or Trump did.

If you want to assign praise to anything Trump has done on that front, you should point to the US military buildup that has been taking place in Europe. Obama did start the buildup in 2014 (after massively cutting it in the previous few years), but Trump has accelerated it. He has also been shifting the growth from places like Germany to places like Poland and other Eastern European countries. They're in better locations and cost less money.