Fake News aka Winston Smith

[ZNPaaneah]

This has been a recurring theme in the Politics and Church thread, and perhaps in the climate change thread to a lesser degree. So we should understand the history of this.

After the JFK assassination

The Dallas Daily News did an attack on Jim Garrison's investigation

Then the Saturday Evening Post did an attack

Then Garrison was offered a Federal Judge position if he would drop the case

NBC did a special, an hour attacking Garrison -- The JFK Assassination: the Case of Jim Garrison

The show was criminal which included an attempt to bribe a key witness to lie. This took place while Garrison had wired his witness, so they had the producer of the NBC show on tampering and obstruction of justice. However, it went to federal court and Sheridan never got tried.

Now at that time we had an "Equal time rule" with the FCC. Since NBC had attacked Garrison's case for an hour he was given an hour to respond. That had a huge impact on public perception and also on the law. The US did away with the equal time law. No more is there a "fair play" law in this country.

The 9/11 attack -- no one hears the other side, only the official version
Voter fraud -- same thing
Wall Street Corruption -- same thing
RFK assassination, Fake war in Iraq, Mortgage meltdown, etc.

That is where Fake news came in, no longer did the media need to fear of being caught in a lie.

But along with their cavalier attitude towards the truth you see a steady decline in the perception of the media and an increase in people seeking out other sources, particularly through the internet.

How to stop that? Read the Patriot act.

PS Winston Smith was the lead character in 1984

[ZNPaaneah]

The government no longer has to show evidence that the subjects of search orders are an "agent of a foreign power," a requirement that previously protected Americans against abuse of this authority.
The FBI does not even have to show a reasonable suspicion that the records are related to criminal activity, much less the requirement for "probable cause" that is listed in the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution. All the government needs to do is make the broad assertion that the request is related to an ongoing terrorism or foreign intelligence investigation.
Judicial oversight of these new powers is essentially non-existent. The government must only certify to a judge - with no need for evidence or proof - that such a search meets the statute's broad criteria, and the judge does not even have the authority to reject the application.
Surveillance orders can be based in part on a person's First Amendment activities, such as the books they read, the Web sites they visit, or a letter to the editor they have written.
A person or organization forced to turn over records is prohibited from disclosing the search to anyone. As a result of this gag order, the subjects of surveillance never even find out that their personal records have been examined by the government. That undercuts an important check and balance on this power: the ability of individuals to challenge illegitimate searches.

[ZNPaaneah]

1. All phone records of everyone in the US are being collected and analyzed.
2. All text messages
3. All keystrokes on the computer
4. Fiber optic cables connecting countries are being tapped.
5. NSA hackers install malicious software to damage and disrupt businesses.
6. If an investigation is opened on you for something you said, posted, typed, etc then they can access everything you own and do business with secretly without you knowing, and that includes your computer, smart phone, cloud servers, etc.

[ZNPaaneah]

As the power of the government has grown the power of the "fourth branch of government" has been neutered. This is not a good combination.

[Ohio]

For Fake News to exist, there must be another branch of government called the Deep State which feeds them a regular, dissembling supply of deceptive misinformation.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

1. All phone records of everyone in the US are being collected and analyzed.
2. All text messages
3. All keystrokes on the computer
4. Fiber optic cables connecting countries are being tapped.
5. NSA hackers install malicious software to damage and disrupt businesses.
6. If an investigation is opened on you for something you said, posted, typed, etc then they can access everything you own and do business with secretly without you knowing, and that includes your computer, smart phone, cloud servers, etc.

The current plight of reporter Sharyl Attkisson confirms this.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

For Fake News to exist, there must be another branch of government called the Deep State which feeds them a regular, dissembling supply of deceptive misinformation.

The Deep State to stay in power illegally needs the surveillance power of the NSA and the muscle of the CIA (after the JFK assassination there were an additional 78 deaths of key witnesses and persons of interest, quite a few of which were "apparent suicides", "car accidents", "airplane crashes", etc)

"Solving president Kennedy's assassination is the only way to get America back in shape" President Jimmy Carter when appointing Sorenson to head CIA.

But that did not go over very well -- Two would be assassins named Raymond Lee Harvey and Oswaldo Espinoza were arrested in a plot to assassinate Carter. President Carter got the message, saying: “I have lost control of the government”.

NYTimes — May 12, 1979

https://www.nytimes.com/1979/05/12/a...-evidence.html

[awareness]

Who are the deep state?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

Who are the deep state?

You may not be aware of this but we do know for a fact that the CIA killed JFK. A memo was accidentally released by the government in the wake of Oliver Stone's JFK movie which forced them to release many of the documents that were supposed to be sealed for another 20 years. The memo is a CIA memo saying they needed to help Clay Shaw in his trial because if they didn't he would surely be convicted. That is an internal CIA memo concerning Clay Shaw who worked for the CIA.

Likewise we have Nixon on tape saying the reason he had to resign and couldn't just throw Howard Hunt under the bus was because of the JFK assassination. Howard Hunt is the reputed bag man for the assassination. We have a witness to that, a young woman who was his mistress, but she is one of the 78 key witnesses killed.

We also have a patrolman's radio which recorded the shooting and you could hear 4 shots. This is why Congress declared that the JFK and Martin Luther King assassinations were conspiracies.

Who then? -- Lots of threads running to the CIA. Gerald Ford was put onto the Warren commission, was a key congressman affiliated with the CIA and became president after Nixon resigned. Nixon resigned because of Howard Hunt, a CIA man on his staff. Carter was threatened with assassination if he tried to break up the CIA, a threat JFK had made prior to his assassination. Ronald Reagan was completely controlled by oil men and CIA men like George Bush. George Bush had very direct ties to both the Bay of Pigs and the JFK assassination. Clinton did whatever was asked -- hand over control of the US media -- done. Enslave workers to make our stuff -- done. Take away regulations on banks and wall street so they could rob us blind -- done. And Obama, for 8 years refused to sign an authorization to release the rest of the JFK related documents.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

For Fake News to exist, there must be another branch of government called the Deep State which feeds them a regular, dissembling supply of deceptive misinformation.

Credit Clinton in 1996 for giving control of our media over to 6 companies. That was the Deep State baptizing Fake News, using Clinton as the high priest.

He also signed onto NAFTA allowing US corporations to have legal slavery.

And he signed Glass-Steagal, the act that set the stage for the Mortgage crisis.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Now at that time we had an "Equal time rule" with the FCC. Since NBC had attacked Garrison's case for an hour he was given an hour to respond. That had a huge impact on public perception and also on the law. The US did away with the equal time law. No more is there a "fair play" law in this country.

The 9/11 attack -- no one hears the other side, only the official version
Voter fraud -- same thing
Wall Street Corruption -- same thing
RFK assassination, Fake war in Iraq, Mortgage meltdown, etc.

That is where Fake news came in, no longer did the media need to fear of being caught in a lie.

Think about it, we know that the Vietnam war was based on a phony Gulf of Tonkin attack. Was anyone held accountable for that lie?

We know that the Gulf war was based on a phony "weapons of mass destruction" claim. Was anyone held accountable for that lie?

We know that the attack on Panama was simply a dress rehearsal for the Gulf war, was anyone punished? No.

How about George Bush, conveniently forgot he was in Dallas on Nov 22, his company Zapata, was the code name for the Bay of Pigs invasion. The guy responsible for Iran Contra who said "if they knew what we were up to they would chase us down the street and hang us".

The House Select Committee concluded that JFK was assassinated by a conspiracy and instructed the Justice department to investigate. Why is that investigation still open decades later, sitting ignored all this time?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

You may not be aware of this but we do know for a fact that the CIA killed JFK. A memo was accidentally released by the government in the wake of Oliver Stone's JFK movie which forced them to release many of the documents that were supposed to be sealed for another 20 years. The memo is a CIA memo saying they needed to help Clay Shaw in his trial because if they didn't he would surely be convicted. That is an internal CIA memo concerning Clay Shaw who worked for the CIA.

Likewise we have Nixon on tape saying the reason he had to resign and couldn't just throw Howard Hunt under the bus was because of the JFK assassination. Howard Hunt is the reputed bag man for the assassination. We have a witness to that, a young woman who was his mistress, but she is one of the 78 key witnesses killed.

We also have a patrolman's radio which recorded the shooting and you could hear 4 shots. This is why Congress declared that the JFK and Martin Luther King assassinations were conspiracies.

Who then? -- Lots of threads running to the CIA. Gerald Ford was put onto the Warren commission, was a key congressman affiliated with the CIA and became president after Nixon resigned. Nixon resigned because of Howard Hunt, a CIA man on his staff. Carter was threatened with assassination if he tried to break up the CIA, a threat JFK had made prior to his assassination. Ronald Reagan was completely controlled by oil men and CIA men like George Bush. George Bush had very direct ties to both the Bay of Pigs and the JFK assassination. Clinton did whatever was asked -- hand over control of the US media -- done. Enslave workers to make our stuff -- done. Take away regulations on banks and wall street so they could rob us blind -- done. And Obama, for 8 years refused to sign an authorization to release the rest of the JFK related documents.

So the CIA is the deep state? But it's neither deep nor a state?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Who are the deep state?

Col. Fletcher Pouty called it "The Secret Team."

Richard E. Sprague called them "The Power Control Group."

[Weighingin]

It seems to me that the strongest evidence so far points to Oswald having fired the fatal shots. There is so much back and forth on the "Grassy Knoll", shots heard on police radio, etc.
But I would say that even If Oswald did the actual shooting on his own, I wouldn't be surprised if he may have had help in the setup and planning for the
assassination. I say this mainly based on an account given by an FBi informant who was speaking to a wealthy, ultra right rich man before the assassination.
He described that the President would be shot from a position on an upper floor of a building.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Col. Fletcher Pouty called it "The Secret Team."

Richard E. Sprague called them "The Power Control Group."

I think they are revealed by what they do and the things they are willing to pay big for.

1. Assassination of JFK -- big price

For what -- to test out and display military hardware in the Vietnam war? Or was it to protect the CIA from being dismantled?

whereas assassination of RFK was simply cya.

2. Assassination of Martin Luther King -- not a big price, but very revealing. I think this reveals that they are evil men, white racists, perhaps even white supremacists, who don't want the current economic order changed.

3. Controlling the news media outlets -- reveals that they can afford to pay a lot of money for this even though it is a bad financial investment. Who has the money to do this? Hidden budgets in the CIA could pay for individual reporters, anchors, pundits, etc. But this group must have a much bigger corporate funding. Have you ever noticed that the CEO's of major corporations seem to be an elite club, even if your company goes bankrupt they just move you to another fortune 500 company? I think it is oil money.

4. 9/11 very big price -- To me this attack showed that this group is terrified, desperate to accomplish three things:
1. Patriot act -- which is anticipating uprisings from within the US,
2. Put our military in Iraq and Afghanistan controlling the largest oil reserves outside of Saudi Arabia and controlling some of the best natural gas reserves in the world.
3. Modernize our military with drones and robots

So although they may ignore or deny climate change, I think they see the coming disaster, are terrified, can justify killing thousands of Americans to themselves, and despite controlling the media realize they'll need to fight this war with drones and robots.

It's a plutocracy. The interests of arms manufacturers and big oil intersect. They have bought out the media, manipulate elections, and work closely with CIA and NSA. Some know too much so regardless of how poor they are as CEO they always have a job. But 90% of the work is done by those who know nothing and are simply following orders. Prior to 9/11 Cheney had a special meeting with CEOs. He refused to release information about that meeting, going so far as to say the VP is not part of the executive branch and is not under the oversight of Congress. That is the closest we have come to knowing who they are.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Weighingin

It seems to me that the strongest evidence so far points to Oswald having fired the fatal shots. There is so much back and forth on the "Grassy Knoll", shots heard on police radio, etc.
But I would say that even If Oswald did the actual shooting on his own, I wouldn't be surprised if he may have had help in the setup and planning for the
assassination. I say this mainly based on an account given by an FBi informant who was speaking to a wealthy, ultra right rich man before the assassination.
He described that the President would be shot from a position on an upper floor of a building.

I don't think there is any evidence that Oswald fired any shots.

Evidence he was involved (for sure), evidence he was a patsy (perhaps), evidence he was a lone gunman (preposterous and ridiculous).

[Ohio]

Anyone else disgusted by today's Buzzfeed story proven a hoax by, get this, Mueller himself?

This was supposed to be an airtight story that provided impeachable offenses. Pure lies!

“BuzzFeed’s description of specific statements to the special counsel’s office and characterization of documents and testimony obtained by this office, regarding Michael Cohen’s Congressional testimony is not accurate,” the statement from Mueller spokesman Peter Carr said.

But don't think Mueller decided to be honest for a change. He was merely protecting his own people -- who alone would have to step forward to verify the story.


The list of FAKE NEWS stories about Trump just keeps growing.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Anyone else disgusted by today's Buzzfeed story proven a hoax by, get this, Mueller himself?

This was supposed to be an airtight story that provided impeachable offenses. Pure lies!

“BuzzFeed’s description of specific statements to the special counsel’s office and characterization of documents and testimony obtained by this office, regarding Michael Cohen’s Congressional testimony is not accurate,” the statement from Mueller spokesman Peter Carr said.

But don't think Mueller decided to be honest for a change. He was merely protecting his own people -- who alone would have to step forward to verify the story.


The list of FAKE NEWS stories about Trump just keeps growing.

Love your advise "Don't think..." It's great to have someone like you to tell us how to think.

And what shouldn't we think? That Mueller was honest.

But implicit in that advise is the presupposition that the one giving us this advise i. e. you, IS honest. And why, I ask, should we do that?

Because we know who you are? No. You've kept that secret.

Because you have shown yourself to be fair? No. You have shown yourself to be unfailingly partisan and biased.

Because you are better informed than Mueller? Highly doubtful.

So, pray tell, why should we accept your word over Mueller's?

[ZNPaaneah]

We have become tribal, being tribal is a consequence of not trusting those outside of your group. And we have become scattered. It seems we are running in twenty different directions. Our faith in our constitution is being tried. But that is a good thing if your goal is to get a perfect work.

Today we are faced with certain major issues that require wisdom:

1. Climate change — any solutions?

2. Gun violence — any solutions?

3. Fake news — any solutions?

When we look at our 200+ year history we can make several conclusions. George Washington — demonstrated great patience in his prosecution of the revolutionary war and did not waver. Abraham Lincoln was a man who did not waver regardless of the extreme costs. We have seen lowly brothers like U.S. Grant and Truman exalted, and we have seen the rich fade away (John D. Rockefeller, Ford, Morgan, etc). And we have seen the common factor among all of them is they did not fall for the temptation to blame others for their mistakes. “The buck stops here”. The US can be a great country because of the gifts of God and yet that does not exclude the possibility of us making mistakes. The formation of this country was of God’s will. He brought us forth by the word of truth. The US government is a kind of first fruit of his creatures. Today we see the wrath of man played out in many arenas, but the wrath of man is not what produced the righteousness of God. The constitution, the ideals of this nation, the freedoms we treasure, these were not produced by the wrath of man. Terrorist attacks are an example of the wrath of man, but they will not produce the righteousness of God. What will save our souls is the word of truth, you cannot receive it if you are overflowing with wickedness and filthiness. You need to receive it with meekness. It must be an active word that we can do, not simply listen to. Much of the media is designed to lull people to sleep. The only way we can be a great country is if we look into the Lord’s golden rule. If this is a country that Loves God and loves our neighbor as ourselves, then that would be a city on a hill shining to the world. I think we can look back on our history and say that was, at times our story. But we need to “continue in it”. You cannot be the seed that brings forth 60 fold or 100 fold if you don’t “continue in it”. Today we see useless religion. Our biggest issue is not climate change, or gun violence or fake news. Our biggest issue is poverty, single mothers, and children who are not being cared for. If you took care of those two issues there would not be any gang violence. Take away gang violence and you have almost no gun violence, you have solved 80% of the problem. As for climate change no one has time for that if they are too poor to keep the heat on and keep food on the table. Deal with single mothers and children who are not being cared for and then the country could focus on climate change. What is this really but our government being corrupted by the interests of certain lobbyists. What is fake news other than trying to sell something corrupt as though it were something pure.

“The wicked in his pride persecutes the poor”. If we want to be a great nation we need to stand against the wicked and the persecution of the poor. “You are the helper of the fatherless”. If we want to be in the image and likeness of God we need to be a nation that helps the fatherless.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

We have become tribal, being tribal is a consequence of not trusting those outside of your group. And we have become scattered. It seems we are running in twenty different directions. Our faith in our constitution is being tried. But that is a good thing if your goal is to get a perfect work.

Today we are faced with certain major issues that require wisdom:

1. Climate change — any solutions?

2. Gun violence — any solutions?

3. Fake news — any solutions?
... Our biggest issue is poverty, single mothers, and children who are not being cared for. If you took care of those two issues there would not be any gang violence. Take away gang violence and you have almost no gun violence, you have solved 80% of the problem. As for climate change no one has time for that if they are too poor to keep the heat on and keep food on the table. Deal with single mothers and children who are not being cared for and then the country could focus on climate change. What is this really but our government being corrupted by the interests of certain lobbyists. What is fake news other than trying to sell something corrupt as though it were something pure.

“The wicked in his pride persecutes the poor”. If we want to be a great nation we need to stand against the wicked and the persecution of the poor. “You are the helper of the fatherless”. If we want to be in the image and likeness of God we need to be a nation that helps the fatherless.

Consider -- when did fake news become an issue, when they eliminated fair play. Now those with the money can say whatever they want, slam and attack anyone, and if you don't have the money to respond you are kept silent. This is "the wicked in his pride persecuting the poor". Bring that law back. Likewise with gun violence. Every time some kid in the hood gets shot does anyone pay? No. We don't allow people in cars to do this, so why is it OK with a gun? Every gun owner should have insurance. Once you do that there would be no issue with those records being digital, they are not controlled by the govt. We could then immediately look at a bullet and know who fired it. Who pays. That would bring a big lobbyist immediately into this battle, that would compensate all the poor who are being abused, that would help the fatherless. Also, the cops would now have something else they could charge a person with who was found with illegal guns.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Consider -- when did fake news become an issue?

In the recent era, it really started with Dan Rather, CBS News Anchor, durong the 2004 Election. He fraudulently promoted bogus documents which attacked Bush's military service record.

Rather was forced to step down as anchor, but today, like Brian Williams of NBC, his career was resuscitated by the media power players.

Today many outlets have become little more than propaganda machinery, which is far worse than state run media in totalitarian regimes.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

In the recent era, it really started with Dan Rather, CBS News Anchor, durong the 2004 Election. He fraudulently promoted bogus documents which attacked Bush's military service record.

Rather was forced to step down as anchor, but today, like Brian Williams of NBC, his career was resuscitated by the media power players.

Today many outlets have become little more than propaganda machinery, which is far worse than state run media in totalitarian regimes.

Dan Rather was a CBS reporter in Dallas when JFK was assassinated. His reporting there is what elevated his career. Every reporter that pushed the official line got promoted, those who bucked that got fired.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Dan Rather was a CBS reporter in Dallas when JFK was assassinated. His reporting there is what elevated his career. Every reporter that pushed the official line got promoted, those who bucked that got fired.

I didn't know that.

I did know that Senator Arlen Specter's career took off when he proposed the "magic bullet" theory that hit both JFK and Gov. Connally.


Are you familiar with the "umbrella man?"

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I didn't know that.

I did know that Senator Arlen Specter's career took off when he proposed the "magic bullet" theory that hit both JFK and Gov. Connally.


Are you familiar with the "umbrella man?"

There is the "umbrella man" and also the man with the make believe seizure. But Arlen Specter and the magic bullet is my favorite. There is a very short scene in the movie JFK that completely demolishes it, it comes right at the end during the trial.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by zeek

Love your advise "Don't think..." It's great to have someone like you to tell us how to think.

And what shouldn't we think? That Mueller was honest.

But implicit in that advise is the presupposition that the one giving us this advise i. e. you, IS honest. And why, I ask, should we do that?

Because we know who you are? No. You've kept that secret.

Because you have shown yourself to be fair? No. You have shown yourself to be unfailingly partisan and biased.

Because you are better informed than Mueller? Highly doubtful.

So, pray tell, why should we accept your word over Mueller's?

One person's opinion. I would say think critically as many of us have done here on this forum. Would we be here if we didn't?
As for Mueller, there's nothing of substance to be found. When the investigation comes to a conclusion it may be anti-climatic.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Terry

One person's opinion. I would say think critically as many of us have done here on this forum. Would we be here if we didn't?

As for Mueller, there's nothing of substance to be found. When the investigation comes to a conclusion it may be anti-climatic.

Careful Terry. You are wading into the swamp here.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Terry

One person's opinion. I would say think critically as many of us have done here on this forum. Would we be here if we didn't?
As for Mueller, there's nothing of substance to be found. When the investigation comes to a conclusion it may be anti-climatic.

I am thinking it has to be anticlimactic. Imagine if Mueller had truly discovered high crimes and treason but has been sitting on this until he finishes his investigation. It seems that itself would be criminal. The investigation is about whether or not Trump colluded with Russia, that would be treasonous, how do you sit on that information, knowing your President is in cahoots with Russia?

[ZNPaaneah]

Simple question: On 9/11 Bush was notified that the second plane had hit the second tower and that we were under attack. However, for 29 minutes he continued to stay at the elementary school. Why?

At that time we are to believe that the Secret Service didn't know how many planes had been hijacked, that there were still thousands of planes in the air, and President Bush's visit to the school had been public knowledge for the last 4 days. How do you know the President isn't a target? One plane was headed for the Pentagon, the one that crashed in Pa was presumably headed for the Whitehouse, how do you know that the school is not a target?

Also, since there have been hundreds of high rise fires, many far more intense and lasting far longer than the World Trade Center, is anyone aware of any other fire that caused a collapse of a high rise, steel frame building? The only 3 that I am aware of took place on 9/11 (Tower 1, 2, and Building 7).

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Simple question: On 9/11 Bush was notified that the second plane had hit the second tower and that we were under attack. However, for 29 minutes he continued to stay at the elementary school. Why?

Did he really sit there for 29 minutes? Seemed like forever.

Hey ZNP, do you really think it would have taken 13 hours for American troops to arrive in Benghazi to protect our Ambassador and his team?

What do you think about the Director of the CIA differing from WH talking points which were accusing some video for the Benghazi "uprising," and then suddenly the Director of the CIA was arrested for betraying classified secrets?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Did he really sit there for 29 minutes? Seemed like forever.

Answering a question with a question -- that is a non answer. Simple question, no dispute, he was told that he was under attack, everyone confirms that was what was told him, and yet the Secret Service sat there for 29 minutes, again no dispute about that. I don't understand that. The school was not a safe area. Being a target you wouldn't want to be at the elementary school, the collateral damage would be horrifying. Later they said they had him flying around the country to keep safe, that is reasonable. Why sit there for 29 minutes?

Originally Posted by Ohio

Hey ZNP, do you really think it would have taken 13 hours for American troops to arrive in Benghazi to protect our Ambassador and his team?

I think it is a major mistake to hire contract defense teams like Blackwater. If you cannot get the support of the American people then you have a problem with your policy. Second, if you need local militia from Libya to protect your embassy then that is a second major mistake.

Originally Posted by Ohio

What do you think about the Director of the CIA differing from WH talking points which were accusing some video for the Benghazi "uprising," and then suddenly the Director of the CIA was arrested for betraying classified secrets?

I think this is inevitable. Military personnel are trained to respond and make these decisions, going to the State Department who has hired contractors and is coordinating with local militia, these people are way out of their depth. The director of the CIA probably understands this yet is put in a very tough position of calling out his boss.

I think the proper chain of command is this: General is in charge and answers to the President. The president gives him the mission -- protect the embassy, and the general carries it out with full authority. If he fails the President deals with it, but the President does not micromanage. Let the general do his job that he has been trained to do. All the military personnel need to be marines who answer to this general, both in the compound and in the embassy. Get rid of Blackwater and get rid of local militia.

Blackhawk down is how the military would have responded, Benghazi is what happens when arrogant ignoramuses from State dept think anyone can give orders.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I think this is inevitable. Military personnel are trained to respond and make these decisions, going to the State Department who has hired contractors and is coordinating with local militia, these people are way out of their depth. The director of the CIA probably understands this yet is put in a very tough position of calling out his boss.

I think the proper chain of command is this: General is in charge and answers to the President. The president gives him the mission -- protect the embassy, and the general carries it out with full authority. If he fails the President deals with it, but the President does not micromanage. Let the general do his job that he has been trained to do. All the military personnel need to be marines who answer to this general, both in the compound and in the embassy. Get rid of Blackwater and get rid of local militia.

Blackhawk down is how the military would have responded, Benghazi is what happens when arrogant ignoramuses from State dept think anyone can give orders.

All the evidence I have seen points to an "elimination" of Ambassador Stevens the same way King David eliminated the husband of Bathsheba. Both falsely sent into danger, both left undefended, and in both cases signalling the enemy to attack.

Obviously General Petraeus, current CIA Director, was not part of the deep state because he did not bow to WH orders. Since he knew better, they had to destroy his reputation. Somebody forgot to vet his political loyalty before nominating him to replace Panetta.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I think it is a major mistake to hire contract defense teams like Blackwater. If you cannot get the support of the American people then you have a problem with your policy. Second, if you need local militia from Libya to protect your embassy then that is a second major mistake.

You should read up on this. Many wars have been fought through the State Dept using CIA operatives and Contractor firepower (ex-seal, ex-ranger, ex-delta, etc.) These guys make way more money, can be employed secretly, etc.

The real question, never answered, is why Ambassador needed to die. Obviously they had plenty of available forces, ready and able to be deployed, yet were commanded by State Secretary Killery to "stand down."

The great thing about these "contractors" is that they are no longer bound to military oaths of secrecy. John Tiegen, Mark “Oz” Geist, and Kris "Tonto" Paronto were thus allowed to tell us the true story of what occurred.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

All the evidence I have seen points to an "elimination" of Ambassador Stevens the same way King David eliminated the husband of Bathsheba. Both falsely sent into danger, both left undefended, and in both cases signalling the enemy to attack.

Obviously General Petraeus, current CIA Director, was not part of the deep state because he did not bow to WH orders. Since he knew better, they had to destroy his reputation. Somebody forgot to vet his political loyalty before nominating him to replace Panetta.

If that is true then Ambassador Stevens had information on Clinton she didn't want anyone to know, same way David didn't want Uriah to find out about Bathsheba. Find that information and you can prove your thesis.

So it is an interesting thesis which is a different but equally plausible take on incompetence. But in the end how many people were killed?

Let's return to the question: Why did Bush sit there for 29 minutes? What is the Secret Service doing? thinking?

I have stacks of evidence this was an inside job, not merely conjecture, inference or plausible theories. Also what was the result? That attack has cost us a trillion dollars and a huge list of lives killed or injured both American and foreign.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

If that is true then Ambassador Stevens had information on Clinton she didn't want anyone to know, same way David didn't want Uriah to find out about Bathsheba. Find that information and you can prove your thesis.

So it is an interesting thesis which is a different but equally plausible take on incompetence. But in the end how many people were killed?

Let's return to the question: Why did Bush sit there for 29 minutes? What is the Secret Service doing? thinking?

I have stacks of evidence this was an inside job, not merely conjecture, inference or plausible theories. Also what was the result? That attack has cost us a trillion dollars and a huge list of lives killed or injured both American and foreign.

Not necessarily info on Clinton. They still don't know who ultimately issued stand down orders.


What is your thesis about those 29 minutes?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Not necessarily info on Clinton. They still don't know who ultimately issued stand down orders.


What is your thesis about those 29 minutes?

My thesis is that there is no reasonable justification. I can't imagine that Air Force 1 wasn't ready at that moment for an emergency takeoff, why not? Florida from DC is probably about a quarter of the tank, also I imagine they can refuel in the air, and I also imagine that refueling the plane is done immediately once they land, so it had probably already been serviced. If there was an issue with the plane they would have made that public by now.

You cannot reconcile "we are under attack", "planes coming to the Pentagon, and the Capital building in addition to the twin towers with lets twiddle our thumbs here in this elementary school which is the softest of all targets. If I actually thought that the US is under attack then I am getting the president out of that school immediately. There is no security there from a similar attack (hijacked plane) and the location is public knowledge and was made known with plenty of time for an attacking force to make adjustments. In contrast Air force 1 is designed to survive just this kind of attack. I want to get to that plane and into the air immediately.

On the contrary the behavior of the Secret Service is bizarre until you look at it as their behavior for the entire day. After leaving they put Bush in the plane and then instead of returning to the Whitehouse they flew all over the country under the pretense that this was somehow to keep Bush safe, meanwhile Cheney is in the bunker running the show. Any other president would have ordered the plane back to the Whitehouse immediately so they could be in the situation room.

So this 29 minutes and the subsequent actions of the Secret Service are clearly evidence that something doesn't add up and it is also consistent with a narrative that Bush was not in charge of "this operation". However, the behavior is not in any way consistent with the official line that "we were under attack".

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

My thesis is that there is no reasonable justification. I can't imagine that Air Force 1 wasn't ready at that moment for an emergency takeoff, why not? Florida from DC is probably about a quarter of the tank, also I imagine they can refuel in the air, and I also imagine that refueling the plane is done immediately once they land, so it had probably already been serviced. If there was an issue with the plane they would have made that public by now.

You cannot reconcile "we are under attack", "planes coming to the Pentagon, and the Capital building in addition to the twin towers with lets twiddle our thumbs here in this elementary school which is the softest of all targets. If I actually thought that the US is under attack then I am getting the president out of that school immediately. There is no security there from a similar attack (hijacked plane) and the location is public knowledge and was made known with plenty of time for an attacking force to make adjustments. In contrast Air force 1 is designed to survive just this kind of attack. I want to get to that plane and into the air immediately.

On the contrary the behavior of the Secret Service is bizarre until you look at it as their behavior for the entire day. After leaving they put Bush in the plane and then instead of returning to the Whitehouse they flew all over the country under the pretense that this was somehow to keep Bush safe, meanwhile Cheney is in the bunker running the show. Any other president would have ordered the plane back to the Whitehouse immediately so they could be in the situation room.

So this 29 minutes and the subsequent actions of the Secret Service are clearly evidence that something doesn't add up and it is also consistent with a narrative that Bush was not in charge of "this operation". However, the behavior is not in any way consistent with the official line that "we were under attack".

I agree that Bush took ... like forever ... to get up and leave. Not sure where the 29 minutes came from, but seems to be a reasonable amount of time to get up, walk to the car, drive to an airport, prepare for takeoff with dozens in his entourage, and get into the air. Perhaps their police escort was not scheduled until later.

Landing at the Capital had other risks which seemed to justify remaining in the air.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I agree that Bush took ... like forever ... to get up and leave. Not sure where the 29 minutes came from, but seems to be a reasonable amount of time to get up, walk to the car, drive to an airport, prepare for takeoff with dozens in his entourage, and get into the air. Perhaps their police escort was not scheduled until later.

Landing at the Capital had other risks which seemed to justify remaining in the air.

29 minutes refers to the amount of time he sat there in the classroom with elementary school children after learning the US was under attack. The only reasonable response is to say "I am the president, the commander in chief, we are under attack, got to go" though to the children he might have simply said "got to go". Sitting there for 29 minutes is proof that he was waiting for orders and was not in charge.

The only goal of the Secret Service is to keep the president alive. However, that is not the goal of the President, the commander in chief. His goal is to defend the US against attack. His job is not to sit there for half an hour waiting for directions.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

29 minutes refers to the amount of time he sat there in the classroom with elementary school children after learning the US was under attack. The only reasonable response is to say "I am the president, the commander in chief, we are under attack, got to go" though to the children he might have simply said "got to go". Sitting there for 29 minutes is proof that he was waiting for orders and was not in charge.

The only goal of the Secret Service is to keep the president alive. However, that is not the goal of the President, the commander in chief. His goal is to defend the US against attack. His job is not to sit there for half an hour waiting for directions.

According to your posts, it seems only Trump is his own man, not controlled by others. Yet you rarely, if ever, commend him for this. Any productive leader, brave enough to stand up to these deep state swamp rats, would be, by nature, quite brash and offensive.

You seem to desire the former, yet are intolerant of what comes with it.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

According to your posts, it seems only Trump is his own man, not controlled by others. Yet you rarely, if ever, commend him for this. Any productive leader, brave enough to stand up to these deep state swamp rats, would be, by nature, quite brash and offensive.

You seem to desire the former, yet are intolerant of what comes with it.

I recognize that a country of 350 million is no longer run by one man, but rather a massive bureaucracy. I have no issue with that. What I have an issue with is arrogant, rogue elements within that government that think they can kill whoever they wish and get away with it.

As for Trump I have embraced Paul's word to not judge anyone before the time.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I recognize that a country of 350 million is no longer run by one man, but rather a massive bureaucracy. I have no issue with that. What I have an issue with is arrogant, rogue elements within that government that think they can kill whoever they wish and get away with it.

As for Trump I have embraced Paul's word to not judge anyone before the time.

What if leaders of that "massive bureaucracy" corruptly attack innocent elected officials?

How about God's word to protect the innocent, the hurting, the victims?

If every pro-life man and woman lived by your interpretation of Paul's teaching here, think about how history would be different. What if Lincoln decided not to judge slave-holders? What if the President decided not to judge Hitler? Trump decided not to judge Maduro?

Personally I prefer to support those who are upright, not perfect or sinless of course, but those who are honest and law-abiding.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

What if leaders of that "massive bureaucracy" corruptly attack innocent elected officials?

How about God's word to protect the innocent, the hurting, the victims?

If every pro-life man and woman lived by your interpretation of Paul's teaching here, think about how history would be different. What if Lincoln decided not to judge slave-holders? What if the President decided not to judge Hitler? Trump decided not to judge Maduro?

Personally I prefer to support those who are upright, not perfect or sinless of course, but those who are honest and law-abiding.

Trump ran on a platform that he would drain the swamp. If he is now draining the swamp he is simply doing what he was elected to do. Stop the cry baby whining. What? He didn't realize the swamp was filled with gators and pythons? You thought Hillary was crooked all by herself?

When I look at Washington he was a president that was truly a David vs Goliath situation, he was outgunned, surrounded by a corrupt Despot. When I look at Lincoln, this guy prosecuted the bloodiest and most difficult war in our history and at the same time got the 13th amendment passed. These guys didn't whine about how unfair the battle was.

Trump chose to get into the ring, no one forced him. If he didn't know he was going to fight a heavyweight fight then he has no business being there. If the didn't know the situation was corrupt then why was he talking about draining the swamp, was that simply talk? For a heavyweight fighter he is the biggest cry baby I have ever seen.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Trump ran on a platform that he would drain the swamp. If he is now draining the swamp he is simply doing what he was elected to do. Stop the cry baby whining. What? He didn't realize the swamp was filled with gators and pythons? You thought Hillary was crooked all by herself?

When I look at Washington he was a president that was truly a David vs Goliath situation, he was outgunned, surrounded by a corrupt Despot. When I look at Lincoln, this guy prosecuted the bloodiest and most difficult war in our history and at the same time got the 13th amendment passed. These guys didn't whine about how unfair the battle was.

Trump chose to get into the ring, no one forced him. If he didn't know he was going to fight a heavyweight fight then he has no business being there. If the didn't know the situation was corrupt then why was he talking about draining the swamp, was that simply talk? For a heavyweight fighter he is the biggest cry baby I have ever seen.

Completely bogus example and evaluation of the facts.

What heavyweight fighter goes into the rink and then learns that the judges are out to get him, others pin him down, the announcers lie, and the only people who can buy tickets are those who hate him.

How could Trump know that the Directors of the CIA (Brennan), DOJ (Rosenstein, Yates, and Ohr), FBI (Comey, McCabe, Baker, Strzok, Page), NSA (Clapper), and Muller's Team were all out to get him? It never was a fair fight. They control the media. Apparently because of your own bias, none of this matters to you. I understand.

First you say G'ment is a massive swamp bureaucracy, then you criticize Trump for thinking he could do any good, and that he is nothing compared to Washington and Lincoln. Makes perfect sense!

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Completely bogus example and evaluation of the facts.

What heavyweight fighter goes into the rink and then learns that the judges are out to get him, others pin him down, the announcers lie, and the only people who can buy tickets are those who hate him.

How could Trump know that the Directors of the CIA (Brennan), DOJ (Rosenstein, Yates, and Ohr), FBI (Comey, McCabe, Baker, Strzok, Page), NSA (Clapper), and Muller's Team were all out to get him? It never was a fair fight. They control the media. Apparently because of your own bias, none of this matters to you. I understand.

First you say G'ment is a massive swamp bureaucracy, then you criticize Trump for thinking he could do any good, and that he is nothing compared to Washington and Lincoln. Makes perfect sense!

Don't you just hate when the crooks don't fight fair, they lie, they cheat, so unfair.

"How was Trump supposed to know?" Sounds like he is not qualified to do this job. Never heard Teddy Roosevelt complain like that, nor FDR, certainly not Truman or Eisenhower or LBJ. The only one I can really think of that whined about how unfair everything was, that would be Nixon.

I think you have gotten your time line way out of whack.