The New Yorker Reveals Five Uncomfortable Truths About U.S. And Russia
theintercept.com
theintercept.com
1. Obama and Clinton disagreed on Russia, with Clinton being the more hawkish of the two, but maybe they don't anymore.
2. It would be bad if there was another Cold War.
3. It's likely we interfere in their politics too.
4. The authors are unsatisfied with the evidence behind the DNC hack Russia attribution.
5. Russia is a distraction from other problems.
Even if you accept all the authors premises, what does this add up to?
That both sides engage in jingoism?
(The article in New Yorker is a tiring and annoying read. I may not always like Greenwald's rhetoric but in this case, he correctly highlights the lack of evidence. In an age of rumours and unfounded - but indeed plausible - accusations, the referenced piece seemingly lacks sense of irony.)
So many people honestly ask, "Why do they hate us?" If they had any concept of what we have actually done--most of which is still within living memory--that may just be enough to change our foreign policy into something slightly less disastrous.
Most of Greenwald's stuff has the ring of truth to it, but you'd never guess that from the way people react. Not agreement, not disagreement, but more like when someone just politely keeps talking after you've farted audibly.
Do you get the same reaction?
Disclaimer: I do not support any political candidate that is too far off the edges of the map, ie, both Clinton and Trump were bad picks if you're pro-SV... and Trump has already proved that in the scant time he's been in the White House.
I'm sorry, what? Am I the only one who thought it was a clear nod to Independence Day?
Pathetic.