Who could've seen it coming?
Oh yeah, this reporter on a comedy show, because that's the world we live in now:
inb4 WMD's-like intel ala Russian bounties story to preempt western action (takes tinfoil hat off).
Russia & Ukraine
- Thread starter UsualName
- Start date
Who could've seen it coming?
Oh yeah, this reporter on a comedy show, because that's the world we live in now:
inb4 WMD's-like intel ala Russian bounties story to preempt western action (takes tinfoil hat off).
Reporter seems mentally slow.
I watched this and the reporter was definitely rude and interruptive but at the same time we have not seen any of the actual intelligence to back up the claim. Definitely don’t condone this type of treatment for anyone though.
We’ll see. The Russian plan is exposed so it’s doubtful they’ll use this type of false flag but now this clip can be used as propaganda to undermine our case against Russia.
Reporter is every one of us right now. The US government is undermining their own case, can't go blaming it on a reporter doing their job for the first time in years. It's basically "They have WMD's; we have told you the evidence".
This case is not equivalent to IRAQ.
The US previously used so-called intel to topple a government.
In this case, they are using alleged intel to sound an alarm of an attack. If they are lying, what's the greatest, likely harm that comes to bystanders?
The spokesperson also explained that the sources and means had to be protected. That's how it works: you won't have much of an effective intelligence agency if you continually expose your ways and means whenever a reporter asks.
Btw, do reporters give up their sources as a matter of course?
The balance between accountability and secrecy is not easy to achieve. It's naive to think you can easily obtain them both, at the same time. Accountability is usually reconciled after the fact in these types of cases.
No one's claiming the lie is equivalent in magnitude to Iraq, what every sentient person is saying is "you're making big claims, now show us the evidence"....which is in fact identical to Iraq, or Russian bounties, or Chinese Supermicro spy chips, or Suleimani is planning an attack on our troops, or that Afghan we bombed after the withdrawal was a terrorist, or.....you get the point.
I very much expect this is just an escalating bluff by the US, in which case the Russians cry chicken or the escalation aggravates.
The media's job is not to be anyone's cheerleaders & parrot the WH's statements without question, much less protect a geopolitical bluff, no matter if you support the admin or oppose it. If the spokesperson is saying he has to protect the sources, then don't make the statement that the WH's claims are the evidence. That's yellow cake bullshit.
The comparison of "reporters protecting sources and government protecting sources" is an apt one. Both entities do it to protect the source from harm but both entities will get dragged in the mud if they have a record of peddling lies and hide behind the "protect sources" canard. The comparison ends there, the media doesn't work for us, the government does, they answer to us.
The most charitable opinion one can have here is that dude bungled the response, didn't have a way out, and misspoke, nothing here to hang on the reporter.
Last edited:
In the ebb and flow of all things Russia Ukraine, Putin and Xi met yesterday to condemn NATO and it’s stance on sovereign countries. Nice guys these two.
In truth I am not sure what to make of this because yes China is watching the western response to Ukraine and seeing what it leverage in it Taiwan issue but at the same time the Chinese real estate market is tipping into collapse and that may require their full attention before long.
https://apnews.com/article/winter-olympics-putin-xi-meet-0e9127176250c0cab19b36e75800052e
In truth I am not sure what to make of this because yes China is watching the western response to Ukraine and seeing what it leverage in it Taiwan issue but at the same time the Chinese real estate market is tipping into collapse and that may require their full attention before long.
https://apnews.com/article/winter-olympics-putin-xi-meet-0e9127176250c0cab19b36e75800052e
Not to worry, Turkey- the weasels/shiitebums of NATO have offered to broker negotiations on the conflict.
Frigging Turkey. They are a member of NATO but have purchased and installed missiles that they purchased from Russia . Wrap your head around that, America.
But wait, there's more.
Just when you think they are in Russia's hip pocket, you find that Russia is pissed at them because Turkey makes some lesser but pretty decent home grown missiles itself and has sold a pantload of them to the Ukraine and is in the process of sending more. Wrap your head around that, Russia.
Lots of weasels out there.
And, as is typical of the west, while Russia and China are collaborating on how to divide up the world, the Brits are focused on Party-gate. Not to pick on them, America does that shiite to the max itself.
Thanks for the well thought out reply.
What was at stake during the IRAQ incident was much greater than what's at stake now. There is a greater 'need to know' for the public with such large-scale military action is involved (invade country and take over, or not), vs. our current scenario of either gamesmanship or a leak that another country is about to false flag against another non-NATO country. The fact that military action will be involved is not a question in the current case. It is understood as a fact now. It was a fact before the spokesperson spoke; and it's still a fact.
Whether the US is lying or not ... how could that affect the outcome either way...compared to if there were never a press conference?
The spokesperson articulated horribly. But the reporter also articulated his questions horribly. The reporter kept asking for information; rather than asking for the media or type of information. For example, "Is the source a person? a document? video? Etc." Then go from there. He asked for "information." He received an answer, "Yes, we have information." He never asked about the media of the information from the clip I've seen.
Very poor work from a so-called seasoned reporter.
a wiretap, a hidden surveillance camera, years of investigations in another case, lives of more than just the source, etc.
Again, whether or not you should have been answered, and whether or not accountability is a factor, is a question that has to be answered 'after the fact.'
I also am not claiming that. What I'm claiming is that;
What was at stake during the IRAQ incident was much greater than what's at stake now. There is a greater 'need to know' for the public with such large-scale military action is involved (invade country and take over, or not), vs. our current scenario of either gamesmanship or a leak that another country is about to false flag against another non-NATO country. The fact that military action will be involved is not a question in the current case. It is understood as a fact now. It was a fact before the spokesperson spoke; and it's still a fact.
Whether the US is lying or not ... how could that affect the outcome either way...compared to if there were never a press conference?
And what every sentient person should also know is that everyone doesn't get to see all the evidence in a local thug robbery investigation, let alone regarding military intelligence.
I agree.
The spokesperson articulated horribly. But the reporter also articulated his questions horribly. The reporter kept asking for information; rather than asking for the media or type of information. For example, "Is the source a person? a document? video? Etc." Then go from there. He asked for "information." He received an answer, "Yes, we have information." He never asked about the media of the information from the clip I've seen.
Very poor work from a so-called seasoned reporter.
With the US, it could be about more than that. It could be about protecting:
a wiretap, a hidden surveillance camera, years of investigations in another case, lives of more than just the source, etc.
Just because the US "answers to you," it doesn't mean the US should reveal everything you want to know, when you want to know it. Again, that would be silly for a government to do if it wants to be effective at intelligence gathering.
Again, whether or not you should have been answered, and whether or not accountability is a factor, is a question that has to be answered 'after the fact.'
See above for my comment on how the reporter could have, and probably should have, asked more specific questions. He left wiggle room; and the spokesman took advantage.