Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 whembly wrote:

Rhodes = the horse in question via New York Times.

Why are there so few direct quotations in The Weekly Standard article?

 whembly wrote:

Besides... if you want to bring up Rhode's education, can you point to me what education/experience he has with regards to Foreign Policy?

He has a major in political science from Rice.

 whembly wrote:

Because this Administration just keeps getting bitch-slapped foreign policy wise and need them "filtered" for public consumption.

You're not going to make "fetch" happen. But keep trying, it just gives Trump more ammunition.

 Ouze wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
I don't even know what the fundamental argument behind The Daily Butthurt© even is. The administration uses gullible reporters to advance their agenda? They invent narratives to try and advance their policies? No gak, sherlock. I am outraged, outraged I say.

But, I thought it was a myth that the MSM favored Democrats?!??!

I'm have no idea how what you're saying in any way is a rebuttal to anything I posted.

That some reporters are willing participants in their gullibility, maybe? If not then I don't know.

 Ouze wrote:
You're upset because someone in the Obama administration is a "failed author", which doesn't seem salient but that's a big element of this story for some reason...

I'm personally not upset to find this out, surprised I'll admit, but it does seem to explain (at least partially) why the Obama administration approaches foreign policy decisions in such a dangerously naive way.

People on the left like to chant, "Bush lied, people died." Look at North Africa, ISIS, Syria, and so on. I wonder how many people died because this guy's input was acted on?

As I understand the argument, Obama got a low level SF or Fantasy author or someone like that and had him write some scenarios that the US government and military authorities then used as the basis for carrying out a series of wars and actions in the middle east?

Is that basically the point of this?

 Gordon Shumway wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
Wow, this guy is really conducting some wishful thinking. If the hacker had hacked her email, he would have provided some proof, like he has done every other time he has claimed to have hacked somebody. Even moreso to try to get a plea agreement for whatever he is awaiting trial for. Nope, it looks like you are going to have to put up with at least four (probably eight with the damage Trump will do) years with another Clinton in the White House.

It may be hard to give proof from inside a Fed Pen with no access to any computers...

You don't think the FBI can get the man a computer in order for them to conduct their investigation? You don't think they could just ask him about some of the info he allegedly obtained? Of course, that depends on whether or not you believe they are conducting a fair investigation and are looking for answers. If you don't, then it doesn't really matter what they conclude as you won't believe it anyway. Talk about having your cake and eating it too.

Fox News, the folks he is 'leaking' this info to and who are reporting the story can't get him a computer to allow him to prove anything. The FBI is not going to release any proof, they are holding what they gather for possible indictment/trial.

If you seriously believe something like this from Fox 'news' (ie the company that fought in court to be able to lie), I have a bridge to sell you...

 skyth wrote:
If you seriously believe something like this from Fox 'news' (ie the company that fought in court to be able to lie), I have a bridge to sell you...

Did I claim to believe it?

No, I did not.

What I did do was point out Fox and the hacker are in no position to provide proof. Do you disagree with that statement?

No, I don't disagree. However, that has nothing to do with what I posted. Fox 'news' has proven themselves to be dishonest and thus if there is no proof other than claims from Fox...it shouldn't even be brought up.

Wait, there's some guy forging the narrative in Washington and we are complaining about it on a warhammer forum?

 skyth wrote:
No, I don't disagree. However, that has nothing to do with what I posted. Fox 'news' has proven themselves to be dishonest and thus if there is no proof other than claims from Fox...it shouldn't even be brought up.

The claims are not from Fox, they are from the hacker. Fox has played a recording of him claiming to have hacked the Clinton server.


But do go on. I'm not sure the straw man your building is big enough yet.

 Breotan wrote:

Look at North Africa, ISIS, Syria, and so on. I wonder how many people died because this guy's input was acted on?

So your contention is that the US should have invaded Syria, all of North Africa, and whatever you define as "ISIS"?

I wonder if that trillion dollar war stopped it from doing so, British ex-pat.

 CptJake wrote:

 skyth wrote:
No, I don't disagree. However, that has nothing to do with what I posted. Fox 'news' has proven themselves to be dishonest and thus if there is no proof other than claims from Fox...it shouldn't even be brought up.

The claims are not from Fox, they are from the hacker. Fox has played a recording of him claiming to have hacked the Clinton server.


But do go on. I'm not sure the straw man your building is big enough yet.

But see this is exactly the issue with Clinton's numerous "scandals " that was brought up a few pages ago. People start claiming things with little to no actual evidence, then they get repeated ad nauseum and endless hearings ensue until they eventually become truth in the public eye, whether or not there was any truth to them in the first place. (See all the people Clinton supposedly had killed a few pages ago). When they are finally disproven, the narrative has moved on to the next "scandal." I see that you were saying it was FOX not being able to get evidence, not the FBI (thanks for clarifying btw), but the FBI has stated they think there is no evidence to the claims. Why bring up the FOX report then with your interjection that they couldn't get him a computer in prison?

 dogma wrote:

 Breotan wrote:

Look at North Africa, ISIS, Syria, and so on. I wonder how many people died because this guy's input was acted on?

So your contention is that the US should have invaded Syria, all of North Africa, and whatever you define as "ISIS"?

I wonder if that trillion dollar war stopped it from doing so, British ex-pat.

Right... because our only two options were "do nothing" and "invade" No middle ground at all. Good to know.

 djones520 wrote:

 dogma wrote:

 Breotan wrote:

Look at North Africa, ISIS, Syria, and so on. I wonder how many people died because this guy's input was acted on?

So your contention is that the US should have invaded Syria, all of North Africa, and whatever you define as "ISIS"?

I wonder if that trillion dollar war stopped it from doing so, British ex-pat.

Right... because our only two options were "do nothing" and "invade" No middle ground at all. Good to know.

Don't ya know djones? Political Science majors are experts in Foreign Policy!

Rhodes is the Gruber of this Administration's Foreign Policy PR wing.

@thread: The issue isn't that this administration (or any other for that matter) would want favorable media allies, the issue is that journalists would trade in their integrity for access. Thusly, when Rhodes crafted a policy, he used his "force multipliers" to Forge the Narratives™ and truth be damned. Just like what happened during the drafting of the PPACA and the policy lies that Jonathan Gruber engineered.

The kicker here is that both Gruber & Rhodes admitted to this.

 djones520 wrote:

Right... because our only two options were "do nothing" and "invade" No middle ground at all. Good to know.

The Obama Administration has done many things in the middle ground, including bomb Libya. It is becoming quite clear that American conservatives don't like the middle ground.

 dogma wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

Right... because our only two options were "do nothing" and "invade" No middle ground at all. Good to know.

The Obama Administration has done many things in the middle ground, including bomb Libya. It is becoming quite clear that American conservatives don't like the middle ground.

Um... you call *that* the middle ground?

How 'bout having a fething plan being the middle ground?

No... that has nothing to do what conservatives want. It has everything to do with the sheer incompetence of this administration.

 whembly wrote:

Don't ya know djones? Political Science majors are experts in Foreign Policy!

It is usually part of the curriculum, especially at places like Rice.

 CptJake wrote:

 skyth wrote:
No, I don't disagree. However, that has nothing to do with what I posted. Fox 'news' has proven themselves to be dishonest and thus if there is no proof other than claims from Fox...it shouldn't even be brought up.

The claims are not from Fox, they are from the hacker. Fox has played a recording of him claiming to have hacked the Clinton server.


But do go on. I'm not sure the straw man your building is big enough yet.

It's not a straw man. Fox has no problem propegating lies with no evidence. Thus, until there is actual evidence from a reliable source, the item shouldn't even be mentioned. It's not news, but propeganda.

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Don't ya know djones? Political Science majors are experts in Foreign Policy!

It is usually part of the curriculum, especially at places like Rice.

Ah... that Ivory Tower defense.

:shakes head:

Point being all of this makes sense.

What we have, in this case, are targeted lies - schemes to deceive - AND willing stooges in the media willing to transmit those lies crafted in a PR policy in an attempt to build Obama's legacy (which allows Iran Nukes).

Any dissent is simply struck down because... why? I'll leave that up to you to fill in the blanks.

If only the Bushes, B. Clinton, Reagan, Carter and even NIXON had that relationship to the press.

 whembly wrote:

How 'bout having a fething plan being the middle ground?

Your argument seems to turn on the idea that Obama has a plan.

 whembly wrote:

No... that has nothing to do what conservatives want.

What do you want?

Dilbert creator on Trump:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/comic-riffs/wp/2016/03/21/donald-trump-will-win-in-a-landslide-the-mind-behind-dilbert-explains-why/?tid=hybrid_experimentrandom_2_na


Interesting read.

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

No... that has nothing to do what conservatives want.

What do you want?

More watchdog journalism and less fellatio for access.

 whembly wrote:

More watchdog journalism and less fellatio for access.

But then what will you read?

 skyth wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 skyth wrote:
No, I don't disagree. However, that has nothing to do with what I posted. Fox 'news' has proven themselves to be dishonest and thus if there is no proof other than claims from Fox...it shouldn't even be brought up.

The claims are not from Fox, they are from the hacker. Fox has played a recording of him claiming to have hacked the Clinton server.


But do go on. I'm not sure the straw man your building is big enough yet.

It's not a straw man. Fox has no problem propegating lies with no evidence. Thus, until there is actual evidence from a reliable source, the item shouldn't even be mentioned. It's not news, but propeganda.

I don't know, "World RenownedHacker Claims to Have Hacked Clinton Server" is a story most news organizations would run with if said hacker gave them the scoop. And in fact MANY news organizations have run with this story. So regardless of your hatred of Fox, this IS news.

http://fortune.com/2016/05/05/guccifer-clinton-hack/
http://www.ibtimes.com/romanian-hacker-guccifer-claims-he-hacked-hillary-clintons-completely-unsecured-email-2364424
http://www.businessinsider.com/guccifer-hacked-hillary-clintons-email-2016-5
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/hacker-guccifer-i-got-inside-hillary-clinton-s-server-n568206
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2978290/Hillary-Clinton-s-secret-email-address-revealed-infamous-Guccifer-hack-exposed-messages-White-House-washes-hands-mess.html
http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/Grassley-Clinton-emails-Guccifer/2016/04/13/id/723826/
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-05-05/hacker-guccifer-claims-he-easily-and-repeatedly-hacked-hillary-clintons-private-email-server
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/h-a-goodman/romanian-hacker-guccifer-_b_9856196.html
http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2013/03/19/guccifer-hacker-hillary-clinton-sidney-blumenthal-george-hw-bush/2001429/
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/watch/did-guccifer-hack-hillary/vp-BBrIKvu


It just may be more than Fox...

 whembly wrote:

Ah... that Ivory Tower defense.

You asked for Rhodes' foreign policy educational qualifications, I gave them to you.

 whembly wrote:

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Don't ya know djones? Political Science majors are experts in Foreign Policy!

It is usually part of the curriculum, especially at places like Rice.

Ah... that Ivory Tower defense.

:shakes head:

If political science does not deal with foreign policy, what does?

That's fine. However, sourcing something from just Fox is akin to sourcing something from The Onion...

 skyth wrote:
That's fine. However, sourcing something from just Fox is akin to sourcing something from The Onion...

Right... when you wish to have credibility in your postings, it helps to not post things that are blatantly outlandish, such as this.

 djones520 wrote:

 skyth wrote:
That's fine. However, sourcing something from just Fox is akin to sourcing something from The Onion...

Right... when you wish to have credibility in your postings, it helps to not post things that are blatantly outlandish, such as this.

Considering Fox has the credibility of a dead hedgehog, how is that "blatantly outlandish"?

 whembly wrote:


@thread: The issue isn't that this administration (or any other for that matter) would want favorable media allies, the issue is that journalists would trade in their integrity for access.

Wait... you think journalists have integrity??

In all seriousness, I think that we haven't really moved very far past the heady days of William Randolph Hurst and Yellow Journalism. The difference is now, that journalist schools are teaching them how to do it better. That, and with the internet, as we've seen time and again, there is literally so much gak out there that it is all too easy for BS to become "fact" simply because the right/wrong person reads and believes it.

 CptJake wrote:
Dilbert creator on Trump:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/comic-riffs/wp/2016/03/21/donald-trump-will-win-in-a-landslide-the-mind-behind-dilbert-explains-why/?tid=hybrid_experimentrandom_2_na

I always did have a sneaking suspician that Trump was actually picking his words more carefully that he 'appeared' to be.