but in seriousness this is dangerous stuff here. we're headed to a place where certain foreign policy decisions and stances become stealth-outlawed and -vetoed by the IC as, in their 'assessment', being the result of [whichever country's] influence operation +https://twitter.com/soncharm/status/944390177065177093 …
-
Show this thread
-
can we grow up for a second just a second i promise listen up: EVERY President's foreign policy decision/stance, if it's nontrivial, will end up harming some countries (ABC) and pleasing others (XYZ) you can't infer from this that he's "in XYZ's pocket", it's untenable +
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likesShow this thread -
Obama was in Iran's pocket Bush was in Saudi Arabia's pocket Clinton was in China's pocket Bush Sr was in Kuwait's pocket Reagan was in England's pocket etc etc where does this end? more to the point how does this make sense? +
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likesShow this thread -
shame on the useless puppet press for trotting out these CIA guys to darkly intone that Trump is 'doing Russia's bidding' what 'bidding'? what's he actually done? the travel ban? the tax revision? name the policy also, even if you can, feel free to CRITIQUE the policy +
1 reply 0 retweets 1 likeShow this thread -
Even if you can point to some such policy X, 'Russia wants X to happen' (not that any significant examples have been cited) isn't actually an argument against X if you're a grownup. Actually, I was always instructed to believe that's McCarthyism. which is bad. isn't it? +
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likesShow this thread -
the CIA guy quoted is on slightly more solid ground when he points to, essentially, how Trump is affecting the Great Game dynamics between Russia vs EU. may be true as far as that goes? but so what! that's not an *argument against*. +
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likesShow this thread -
the net effect is to rule out certain *possibly defensible on their own, and arguably democratically-endorsed* actions, stances and decisions as Out Of Bounds (Because They're What Russia Wants). thus CIA Gurus get a veto over normal democratic politics. um sorry guys but no.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likesShow this thread
Much simpler -
CIA and State funded and supported ISIS. Trump stopped that - ISIS collapsed. What's CIA supposed to do? Publicly state "Trump let Russia crush ISIS"?
Instead they say "Trump does Russia's bidding".
All part of the "not technically lying" game
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.