All_Pro_Bills

So how long should we wait for anyone in the media or government that was "wrong" about anything to admit their mistake, apologize, and issue a retraction?

I'll be honest, I'm getting frustrated with you because its not about Putin. But you keep going back there in some effort to marginalize my views by associating me with somebody I never met and have no regard for either. I merely asked for some clarity and discussion around the administration's position of doing "whatever it takes". And what that undefined and nebulous slogan might imply. I dared to questions the establishments actions and lack of providing any clarity to the public at-large around the objectives and you immediately jumped to their defense by suggesting I'm siding with the enemy for merely for questioning the government. How dare me! .

Standard liberal talking points. Kill the messenger, make vague references and avoid detail, and claim that somehow the truth endangers people. It gets tiring.

The objectives are the same, control.

When it comes to war? No, I see no difference. Lots of people die, mostly for nothing. Just a couple: Do you think Bush a terrorists for killing over 400,000 Iraqi civilians in the course of pursing the war in Iraq? Do you think Obama a terrorist for killing civilians in drone strikes into Pakistan? Do you think Churchill was terrorist for authorizing the firebombing of Dresden? Do you think Truman was a terrorist for dropping the H-Bomb on Hiroshima? Leaders make decisions that can be debated to be either good or bad that lead to terrible consequences.

You seem to think our enemies are immoral and merciless savages bent on destruction while we on the other hand are noble and principled civilized people acting to uphold peace and tranquility while the objective truth is the major difference in the two is where you stand. Perspective.

I think it boils down to one thing, perspective.

So in this scenario is Schummer or Carlson the dictator? I mean, Chuck did call on the network to censor the show. But either way I don't see any equivalency in the argument. Its not an unreasonable expectation to ask US officials that dispute statements made by a media personality to appear a TV "news" show with a reporter they claim is making false statements to set him straight. Especially when it involves the biggest threat to democracy since the Civil War. What could be more important? As for legitimacy, he already has one of the highest rated shows so its not like they'd be giving him anything. And if truth is on their side they would severely damage his "legitimacy". to the point he'll have close to zero legitimacy. And you'll have done a public service by neutralizing his voice. But logically, if officials bashing the guy know his positions have merit they would want to avoid any discussion.

If I said yes would it make you happy and would you address my questions?

That's the excuse I expected to hear (I was going to close my post with it!). But at the end of the day they just lack the guts for the confrontation. (and that's the response I expected)

Carlson also said he's invited officials like Garland and Schummer to appear on the show and provide some real-time entertainment and debate on the events, the video, his statements, and their statements but nobody has accepted the invite. My skeptical side says if he's such a liar then end the charade and prove it by calling him out on his own show but I also expect none of these people have the guts to call his bluff and take up his offer. So what does that say about commitment to the truth? Throwing stones at each other over the fence can be fun but its nothing like some in your face confrontation. Time for an old-fashioned throw-down. Tucker seems up to it but the rest of these folks I suspect are cowards.

My questions were about Washington's stated position of support to do "whatever it takes". And other than a slogan there's little meaning to it unless you define some goals and objectives. What are the administrations goals and objectives? First it was defending democracy, then it was to weaken Russia. Which is it? I don't recall hearing anyone, including the President, address the American public with a clear and specific statement other than a few one liners. If I missed it please point it out to me.

And if it was up to the committee, we would still be seeing one side. It's one thing when a media person is a lying propagandist but when our elected officials are lying propagandist that's a serious problem.

Interesting times indeed. Monitoring the rhetoric out of China lately I'm convinced they're planning on providing support in material, arms, and intelligence. Or may already be doing so. And when I hear US officials support the commitment to the point of "whatever it takes", one I wonder what that quantifiably means and two, whatever it takes for what? Does whatever it takes mean an endless escalation of steps up to and including tactical nuclear weapons until total victory? If F-16's are sent, then what's the next step if that doesn't produce "whatever it takes"? Does "whatever it takes" include commitment of US forces to combat missions? And what is the objective of whatever it takes? To reach some peaceful conclusion via a treaty or agreement or unconditional victory defined as a return to Ukraine's 2014 before the seizing of Crimea or something else. What do the Ukrainians think are acceptable terms vs. the US vs. the Europeans? What is Russia looking for or willing to negotiate? In any endeavor it's hard to measure success or failure or something in between when you have no objective goals.

In my view its more about motivation than fitting some classic definition of the term. Why did the US provide assistance to the Afghan rebels? Out of love for the cause (which wasn't the democracy pitch no matter which side prevailed) or to mess with the Soviets? I'd argue the same motivation exists in Ukraine to a small or large degree depending on your perspective. To mess with the Russians. Because excluding the supporting democracy position (which I never bought into) I can't identify a single strategic interest. Some might want to cite some half baked European domino theory about stopping Russia from taking over Western Europe but if they can't beat Ukraine one on one in over a year then somebody please explain and articulate a realistic path to prevailing over the US, NATO, and the armed forces of all of Europe in a combined military alliance? Its just not possible.

So arrest, charge, try, and convict the 100 but the problem with your argument in practice with J6 is that the 90% that were arrested and charged did not riot or commit any acts of violence. Yet many sit in jail without bail without due process for almost 2 years only to be tried for minor trespass offenses. And to top it off, video evidence suggests many were invited into the building. So how is that even tresspass? What the history books will show is in the people working inside the building were the threat to democracy rather than the people protesting outside. You will be the fool.

This has nothing to do with Trump and personally I care not what becomes of him when all this is said and done. This is about gross misconduct of elected and un-elected government officials playing fast and loose with the facts which resulted in 100's of American citizens, mostly on minor charges, being indefinitely detained without bail and jailed on ginned up charges while being denied due process of the law. In this case, the governments suppression of video evidence that contradicts many of the prosecutions contentions. Along with that, a House committee comprised of members with preconceived opinions of guilt while cherry picking evidence, facts, and witnesses that supported those expectations. A committee that was chartered to investigate but rather assumed the role of prosecution. Now that video evidence suppressed for 2 years is out the usual cast of characters that claim allegiance to democracy are scared silly of the truth.

What? We do it all the time. Such as Syria. US forces are occupying parts of the country and I know for sure they didn't ask for "help".

This intelligence community story sounds like the plot line of an episode of The Blacklist. It refutes the original contention the Russians did it, refutes Hersch's investigative piece which implicates the US planning and execution and pins the deed on some unknown group of Ukrainian and Russian dissidents. An unnamed, and somehow unknown until now group that has the capacity and resources to plant and detonate 1,000 lbs of explosives requiring a difficult dive while going completely undetected, until now. All performed undetected and effectively without detection in an area under extremely high levels of surveillance given the potential for hostilities. Suddenly, US intelligence has found the culprit while exonerating itself and all its allies. Talk about luck and coincidence! I mean, at least in the past these agencies had the expertise to produce propaganda pieces which had a high level of credence while weaving some known facts into the story but this one is a whopper of a story that I find preposterous. What's next? The agencies are going to conclude the Capitol video provided to Carlson is fabricated and all manufactured by the Russians which hacked the Capitol systems and replaced the original video log? Wait for that one!

The problem is there are no authorities to deal with in Mexico. Invade the place and set up a 25 mile DMZ. Maybe use our military to actually defend our sovereignty instead of everyone else's for a change. Who's on board with the idea among the war supporters and lovers of democracy elsewhere? I'm sure the local law abiding Mexican population would welcome us.

I've give Chuck credit for his calm delivery style and somewhat dramatic rendition of events and this kill the messenger speech but it still reeks of desperation. What we don't get is the reverse angle view that would show him crapping his pants.

That's it. Deceivers of the worst kind, worse in character and acts than than the people they investigate believing the end justifies any means employed while claiming to be patriots enforcing the rule of law against those threatening the nation. This J6 committee, the 21st century version of the committee for public safety is the threat to democracy.

I don't have a clear understanding of the time line. But your highest priority argument makes no sense to me. Any police officer acting in the line of duty would take the easy opportunity to neutralize a genuine threat in close proximity regardless of priorities. Simply for no other reason than the treat was an easy target of opportunity to neutralize. Instead officers commit time and limited personnel to provide a guided tour to a low priority instead of leaving the suspect alone and tending to what you suggest are higher priories that had police outnumbered like actual rioters. I think you're reaching here rather than being willing to admit that a serious inspection of the official story is required given some of the contradictions the video suggests.

We're past the point of "believe". The video shows police cordially escorting this goof ball through the building past numerous officers any of which could have arrested or stopped him. That seems illogical and makes no sense when trying to reconcile it against the official story. I mean truly, how can you not have any doubts about the committee's narrative?

Using a friendly district court venue and referring all the cases to the court of a judge that shares the politics of the prosecution that will ensure that every defendant is found guilty is the part not too many understand. Apparently, you don't understand that either.