Greenwald: Even Americans Who Hate Trump Should Defend Him Against Attempted Coup

originally posted by: The GUT

originally posted by: underwerks
That's the thing though. Trump says he's against meddling in foreign countries, but his rhetoric about Iran and the middle east matches Wesley Clark's invasion plan for the future perfectly.

I don't believe he's as different as your saying, he's just being sold as that. He's being used just as any other President would be. I'm sure he doesn't believe that, but not believing that is what makes him open to being used by these same intelligence aagencies.

I believe he means it to a large degree. I think it's complex, however, because we basically created extremism/terrorism first by meddling and bombing folk and then by funding and arming them sheesh.

So, yeah, we have to engage terror 'cause it's wrong even though it's our own deep state blowback. I believe Erik Prince has telegraphed Trump's plan for that. In the meantime we proceed to recognize and dismantle the deep state and stop toppling. Syria would be a GREAT start. Cute babies will thank us believe me!

I get what you're saying and it is something to think about. It's just hard for me to believe that it's a coincidence that the most easily manipulatable person was elected as president, especially when most of the people in the country didn't vote for him.

What makes him so prone to being manipulated? His gigantic ego. The bigger the ego, the easier it is to manipulate a person. Trump is a wet dream for the deep state, if it exists.

a reply to: Kettu

You could solve a lot of your admitted ignorance about what kind of blood we as a nation have on our hands and be totally fascinated to boot if you would dig into the empirically-sourced history and operations of the IC up to our current state of nation-toppling sick foreign policy.

Sounds to me like you're selfishly satisfied with the status quo up until now.

originally posted by: underwerks
What makes him so prone to being manipulated? His gigantic ego. The bigger the ego, the easier it is to manipulate a person. Trump is a wet dream for the deep state, if it exists.

I actually somewhat agree and I believe, as such, he presents a very unique and unprecedented opportunity for "we the people."

I'm creating a thread on it that has my very heart in it, I look forward to seeing you there. For now the basic idea is this: Let's forget our partisanship for a minute and make him keep his promise on dismantling the baby-killing-terroist-making foreign policy.

Whether he be Angel or Devil he absolutely CANNOT resist wanting us ALL to love him. He'd probaly die trying if he thought he could make his haters love him. And he might die trying literally. Kennedy died trying---deep state and don't you doubt it. Trump has money...what he really wants is approval. We all do, eh? WE--if we just drop the slam-fest for a minute--can control Wildcard Agent Orange (I actually think the name is cool in this case) and make a real difference for once.

a reply to: underwerks

And considering how many scandals he has that were ongoing BEFORE the election? This Russian crap has been going on for a WHILE.

Nothing happens in this world without the expressed consent of the 100 or so wealthiest people on planet Earth.

If they didn't want Trump, we wouldn't have Trump. People really need to expand their awareness and perception and realize how small and insignificant they are in the global scheme.

We "vote" but it's all a dog and pony show. There are no doubt 50 year+ plans for everything going in many directions, all inevitably winding around and hitting certain "goals" along the way. Some take longer than others.

A good example of this was in '08 where everyone thought Hillary would get the Democrat's nomination. Then this new guy, Obama or whatever swoops in and steals it from her, totally surprising everyone. She was promised though! It was her time! Nope, the people at the highest levels pulling the strings decided to do take-backsies.

The same with Trump. Out of 11-12 candidates we ended up with him. Really? He could have easily been taken out in the primary with a lot of the things that will now be coming out of the woodwork. None of that stuff came out back then...if they wanted to prevent him from getting into office, they could have.

Everyone bitches about the NSA and the CIA just like they do the media. They bitch about it when it doesn't fit their agenda and comply with their worldview. Everyone loves it when the CIA is doing something about terrorism to protect the USA...and in this case, their justification is to keep foreign intelligence services and foreign spies from compromising their intelligence assets and networks.

If Trump has Russian moles in his administration, the CIA can't be sure secrets won't make their way to the Kremlin. That kind of uncertainty, and having foreign spies operating within an administration is a danger to the United States. Period. And as a danger to the sovereignty of the United States the CIA should act to protect the USA. If you disagree with this, you intentionally disrespect the sacrifices our soldiers and former CIA intelligence agents have died for.

It's a shameful day when people can become so paranoid and selfish as not see the larger picture, forgetting their history and selling out their country due to ignorance.

a reply to: Kettu

if detail is needed itll be tomorrow. But long story short: not really. They substantiated the WMD claims (aluminum tubes and whatnot), and shrugged off the connection to Al Qaeda.

Not that it wasn't a war that would happen no matter what.

Good luck with people listening .
With how rabidly the leftists hate trump theyll either start a coup or support those that do .

originally posted by: The GUT
a reply to: Kettu

You could solve a lot of your admitted ignorance about what kind of blood we as a nation have on our hands and be totally fascinated to boot if you would dig into the empirically-sourced history and operations of the IC up to our current state of nation-toppling sick foreign policy.

Sounds to me like you're selfishly satisfied with the status quo up until now.

Apparently you did not read my entire post as I clearly said I do not/have not supported everything that they've done.

But then again, do you have access to all their files and intelligence? Do you know what they knew/know? Did you see what they saw when they made the decisions that they did?

It's like a kid bitching about their parents not letting them do something. The parents know a hell of of lot more than the kid does, but the kid doesn't see or understand that. They just throw a temper tantrum and can't understand why their parents are doing what they're doing.

originally posted by: The GUT

originally posted by: underwerks
What makes him so prone to being manipulated? His gigantic ego. The bigger the ego, the easier it is to manipulate a person. Trump is a wet dream for the deep state, if it exists.

I actually somewhat agree and I believe, as such, he presents a very unique and unprecedented opportunity for "we the people."

I'm creating a thread on it that has my very heart in it, I look forward to seeing you there. For now the basic idea is this: Let's forget our partisanship for a minute and make him keep his promise on dismantling the baby-killing-terroist-making foreign policy.

Whether he be Angel or Devil he absolutely CANNOT resist wanting us ALL to love him. He'd probaly die trying if he thought he could make his haters love him. And he might die trying literally. Kennedy died trying---deep state and don't you doubt it. Trump has money...what he really wants is approval. We all do, eh? WE--if we just drop the slam-fest for a minute--can control Wildcard Agent Orange (I actually think the name is cool in this case) and make a real difference for once.

If Trump actually is beholden to the will of the people and not himself and the people he surrounds himself with, I have no problem at all supporting him. At this point though, that isn't what it looks like to me.

I recognize everyone's perception is different though. I look forward to your thread.

originally posted by: underwerks
If Trump actually is beholden to the will of the people and not himself and the people he surrounds himself with, I have no problem at all supporting him. At this point though, that isn't what it looks like to me.

I recognize everyone's perception is different though. I look forward to your thread.

Given his psychology, as you yourself mentioned, this would be a way we could all put him to the test. We just have to tell the MSM who ALWAYS support our destabilization efforts no matter a Bush crime family or a Clinton crime family to eff off for a minute and put our partisanship aside on this ONE issue. That's all, one.

But, I really do look forward to seeing you in the thread. Thanks.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Kettu

if detail is needed itll be tomorrow. But long story short: not really. They substantiated the WMD claims (aluminum tubes and whatnot), and shrugged off the connection to Al Qaeda.

Not that it wasn't a war that would happen no matter what.

Here's a refresher:

The justification for going to war in Iraq thirteen years ago, was based on a 93-page classified document that allegedly contained “specific information” on former Iraqi leader President Saddam Hussein and the weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programs he was apparently running.

Now that document has been declassified and it reveals that there was virtually zero justification for the Iraq war. The document reveals that there was “no operational tie between Saddam and al Qaeda” and no WMD programs.

National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice stated at the time on CNN that the tubes “are only really suited for nuclear weapons programs, centrifuge programs,” and that “we don’t want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud.

The version of the NIE released in 2004 redacted the aluminum tubes section in its entirety. But the newly declassified assessment unredacts a majority of it and shows that the intelligence community was unsure why “Saddam is personally interested in the procurement of aluminum tubes.” The US Department of Energy concluded that the dimensions of the aluminum tubes were “consistent with applications to rocket motors” and “this is the more likely end use.”

Link

It was decided that WMD would be used anyway as a justification...

A confidential memo obtained by the Observer, detailing a meeting between President George W. Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair, confirms their determination to press ahead with the invasion of Iraq in 2003 without any evidence of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and without United Nations approval

According to the memo, Bush discussed various possible provocations that might trigger a second UN resolution to justify war in the absence of any WMD. One plan being considered by the White House was “to fly U2 reconnaissance aircraft painted in UN colours over Iraq with fighter cover” provoking Iraqi forces into opening fire and thereby putting them in breach of a UN resolution.

Bush also discussed his hopes that an Iraqi defector might still be “brought out” to talk about WMD, or that someone might assassinate Saddam Hussein.

Link

A lot of people want to scapegoat the IC, but it really was the administration that took the nearly non-exisitent "proof" way, way out of context and lied about it to the nation, and world. We were always going to invade Iraq, and Bush/Cheney were on a fishing expedition -- shopping around trying to find someone or something to give them what they needed to convince the American public.

a reply to: underwerks

This is a nagging thought in the back of my mind. Did the media / establishment think that they could bully the populace, mock Trump and beat him that way? Did the underestimate the anger of the people? Did they overestimate their popularity? Assuming he is an "outsider".

Or did they want Trump, and he fits into their plans? Is this the plan? To turn citizen against citizen? Make Trump the scapegoat and at the same time be able to say "I told you so! We can't let the people have power because look what they choose when we do!"?

We are always in a position of fighting for our rights, they aren't given. Have they figured out a different way of getting us to give up our rights? Without a shot fired? See we've been "told" by various ways that the West is civilized, we don't do war against each other, physically. But there are other ways of waging war...but would we recognize it?

a reply to: Kettu

I would buy your premise but there's way too many questions with your logic in that post. When you think of it in the context of the OP, then the intelligence community looks even worse. They have no problem leaking what is going on or may not be going on with the Trump Administration and it's supposed ties to Russia, allegedly as a whistleblowing maneuver in the interest of the American people. But somehow that altruistic spirit vanished when it came time for thousands of Americans and hundreds and thousands of Iraqis, were about to lose their lives? Not to mention the trillions of dollars of debt that were about to be put onto the backs of the American taxpayer for this action. So which is it? Does the intelligence community care about the American citizens or not? Because when you view all the actions together it appears that they are only looking out for the self interest of their community.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
Anyone with the stones to take on the CIA/NSA has my support. We can deal with how big of a scoundrel they are later....the back of the CIA/NSA must be broken.

And the DEA, DHS, IRS, ATF, and FBI. And Department of Education.

But start with the CIA/NSA.

And DIA.

Whoops, tried to edit my post and replied instead

originally posted by: worlds_away
a reply to: underwerks

This is a nagging thought in the back of my mind. Did the media / establishment think that they could bully the populace, mock Trump and beat him that way? Did the underestimate the anger of the people? Did they overestimate their popularity? Assuming he is an "outsider".

Or did they want Trump, and he fits into their plans? Is this the plan? To turn citizen against citizen? Make Trump the scapegoat and at the same time be able to say "I told you so! We can't let the people have power because look what they choose when we do!"?

We are always in a position of fighting for our rights, they aren't given. Have they figured out a different way of getting us to give up our rights? Without a shot fired? See we've been "told" by various ways that the West is civilized, we don't do war against each other, physically. But there are other ways of waging war...but would we recognize it?

Good points on everything. You may very well be right. I think only time will tell.

What Trump really means in all this will become apparent eventually. Hopefully there will be a country left by the time it does.

a reply to: dreamingawake

I kinda have to wonder what's up with Greenwald. He wrote this piece a few days ago:

The Leakers Who Exposed Gen. Flynn’s Lie Committed Serious — and Wholly Justified — Felonies

Yet very few people are calling for a criminal investigation or the prosecution of these leakers, nor demanding the leakers step forward and “face the music” — for very good reason: The officials leaking this information acted justifiably, despite the fact that they violated the law. That’s because the leaks revealed that a high government official, Gen. Flynn, blatantly lied to the public about a material matter — his conversations with Russian diplomats — and the public has the absolute right to know this.

This episode underscores a critical point: The mere fact that an act is illegal does not mean it is unjust or even deserving of punishment. Oftentimes, the most just acts are precisely the ones that the law prohibits.

That’s particularly true of whistleblowers — i.e., those who reveal information the law makes it a crime to reveal, when doing so is the only way to demonstrate to the public that powerful officials are acting wrongfully or deceitfully. In those cases, we should cheer those who do it even though they are undertaking exactly those actions that the criminal law prohibits.

This Flynn episode underscores another critical point: The motives of leakers are irrelevant. It’s very possible — indeed, likely — that the leakers here were not acting with benevolent motives. Nobody with a straight face can claim that lying to the public is regarded in official Washington as some sort of mortal sin; if anything, the contrary is true: It’s seen as a job requirement.

Not once is the "deep state" mentioned in that article. He takes a completely different stance that the leaks were justified and further more — and this is the part that is really interesting — "the motive of leakers are irrelevant."

I disagree with that entirely. The motive of leakers is often extremely relevant. He makes a good point in the video segment about the dangers of the unelected "deep state" but he also makes a good counterargument to that in his article:

That’s because the leaks revealed that a high government official, Gen. Flynn, blatantly lied to the public about a material matter — his conversations with Russian diplomats — and the public has the absolute right to know this.

Not only did Flynn, Donald Trump knew that he'd lied and until the media exposed Flynn's lie (we assume he lied to Pence and others in the administration but he could also just be falling on his sword), Trump apparently had no intention of doing anything about it. So not only was it uncovering Flynn's deception but also that of our new President and other member's of his administration.

a reply to: dreamingawake

First of all, I don't see an attempted coup. That would need military support.

As for "preventing him from enacting his policies"... so far, he's ignored the "advise and consent " of his political peers, left key positions unfilled, supported unqualified people for major positions, compromised security (unsecured old phone, letting people take "selfies" of the guy with the nuclear code, etc, at Florida.)

Now... just ask yourself... if Clinton had won and if she was spending millions of dollars each weekend to go to Florida, if her staff and Congress was constantly leaking secrets -- wouldn't YOU agree that she needed to be gone?

Well, that's the way we feel about Trump.

a reply to: Byrd

Now... just ask yourself... if Clinton had won and if she was spending millions of dollars each weekend to go to Florida

So he's not allowed weekends off? What did you have to say when the Obamas went to Hawaii for two weeks? Do you think that didn't cost millions?

The TRUMPINATOR is the friend of the people and the US and the man needed for the job to deliver effective positive change. He is a maverick and a NONONSENSINATOR and he will go down in history as an example of how to represent state and citizen best interests. He's no angel or gentleman nor politician or diplomat and cuts direct to the chase and acts upon what he states. We need same in the UK!

GO TRUMPY GO!