You are currently browsing the category archive for the ‘washington post’ category.

In 8 short months, Americans have gone from trusting their press 44% of the time, to trusting them 17% of the time.

Undoubtedly their coverage of this election cycle is responsible.   There has never been an election in recent living people’s memory where the entire press corp has focused on supporting one candidate, who then drops out, then focused on another, who then drops out, etc.  Jeb Bush was the favorite until people actually started voting. It was him and Hillary said all the pundits… Jeb Bush is gone, gone, gone… Then it was Marco Rubio… He was the one all voters would elect in the end… Gone, gone, gone…  And so now… it is Hillary…

Which means that Bernie is about to be smeared no doubt…

First this is a good thing… Why?  Because it is better than being ignored which what has happened for so long.  For when a candidate gets smeared, he gets elevated in prominence and people pay attention to him…

Usually that is bad for a candidate, such as with Chris Christie, who once he put himself in the limelight of New Hampshire, couldn’t pass muster.  But when you have a prophetically good candidate who gets smeared, people look closer at that candidate and if they like what they see, they say, “wow, I didn’t know all these details about him.  Why was no one telling us all these great things?”

Then it becomes the smearers who are the ones who look bad… How many people today still have a good positive opinions regarding the Sanhedrin during the time of Pontius Pilate?

So today I saw a headline that Sanders Concedes Defeat.... Intrigued, I looked to see, since with Bernie having earned more campaign money than Hillary across the last three months in a row, I knew that was nothing close to the truth.  Upon reading the article, the headlines premised false.  The article quoted no one who said Sanders was done. Instead, it was twisted from the articles we have already seen about how Sanders didn’t attack Hillary strong on her emails and her Wall Street paid speeches… To be honest, most of us normal people see that as a good saintly thing in Sanders’ character:  choosing to base his campaign strictly on our needs and not on whether he by primary day stands a micro-inch taller than his opponent so he gets a “win”.

So I went to the comments on the social media sight  (It was “recommended” for me, not a real friend’s posting I later found out) and added to the hundreds of others, how the headline lied about the article it tops… “Click Bait” I posted. “This whole post is nothing but bullshit.”

I am asking you to not pass by these anonymous sites, but to do the same.. Just type in the comments: “Click Bait” and some type of warning…

I warn of this malfeasance every election year and since suckers indeed are born every year, new fish are always entering the pond, here is how these things are played….

A major paper, one of the top 5, runs a story with a headline that is very misleading.  They send it out on their multiple feeds…

 

The news is that the Wall Street Journal is reporting (the lie).. All those papers reprinting the lie are legally then telling the truth, and cannot be sued for liable (though they could with deep enough pockets), because they are reporting not the lie itself, but that the Wall Street Journal was reporting it…

The story’s instigators are hoping that the credibility behind the Wall Street Journal, spreads the story wide enough so it becomes belief and every new reporter focuses anew on trying to one-up the story to a higher level, instead of reporting on it being bull.

So news outlets are very careful at first, to make the distinction that they are reporting the accusation itself… not its validity;”the news” is that a certain outlet made such an accusation.  Nowhere is there any detail giving creedence to whether the claim is true.  And if anyone goes to the original article making the accusation, they immediately find no evidence. It is bunk.

In the past it was called Swift Boating where unanswerable accusations are thrown out, no rebuttals allowed to air, and massive proliferation ensues.  Such may have thrown a close 2004 election in the one state that made all thedifference.  All’s fair in war I guess.

It also was used by the Washington Post, to sink Joe Biden’s 2008 presidential run, as detailed here in 2007.  Here, when one combed that Washington Post article for proof, it came down to this single printed sentence… “that some on the editorial board “felt” Biden thought Blacks were poorer students than whites showing he must be prejudiced…”  In today’s  world, we have terrible corporate polices enforced on every state to close that very gap.  That was truth back then, not prejudice.  But the headline ran something like: “Biden Thinks Blacks Can’t Be Educated.”  Yeah, it was pure race baiting.

This is just how it works….  In those days when Facebook was something only college kids used, there was no way to combat the newspapers and medias reach. Today there is…. if you use it…

When you see a lie on your social media,  read the article, comment it is nothing but click bait and if you feel the Bern, put it up on your site ridiculing the perpetrators…  People don’t read junk.  They read what you wrote….

It is hard to convince anyone not to like Bernie… If enough of us call out the media where they get hurt the most, on social media, then we have fought a small part in the ongoing war to keep America in the hands of Americans… and not the hands of some Australian news conglomerate owner…

 

 

 

 

 

Advertisements

This is brief.

One can make all types of distinctions to explain things in simplier ways.  The best way to understand politics is to acknowledge that the two groups fighting each other over everything, are you, all of you, the people, and the interests of money, supported by all those who are supported by big investments…

So at every junction of domestic politics, we have to consider how a plan or action affects a) those who are people, and how it affects those who are business.

Business versus the People.  Obamacare, Taxes, and Israel.

Now take Obamacare.

Obamacare is good for the people. Not so good for those making money.  But if you are a average person, it is kind of hard for you to get to a microphone now isn’t it?  It is relatively easy for a business type to garner one.  That helps explains how all the talk is over how bad Obamacare is.  Because, face it, it is bad for those charging too much for you to get sick.  But if you are the ones on the buying end, it is good for you if you get sick.

Likewise higher tax rates are good for the majority of people. They create jobs, they cause money to flood into the economy in their dodge from the tax man. They cause ones wages to rise, and cause purchasing to increase…  They cause building and construction trades to boom.  Unfortunately they somewhat cost the financial world in commissions.  People have to put their money into factories now instead of commissions arising from the buying and selling of financial packages… But it is hard to get a microphone to express your view of a grateful public.  It is easy for an advertiser to demand air time for his cause, after all, “he paid for this microphone.”

Israel.  One must realize that Israel’s existence creates an world’s most expensive arms market involving Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, That is huge money for America’s defense industry as well as those of other nations.  However having peace and cooperation in the Holy Land would be far better for the American people. Just think: no terrorism. Telling Israel to stand down, would benefit all of the American people; doing so would cut into the profits of those arm’s dealers who readily exploit the fear of both sides to get supply contracts signed.  No fear; no contracts.

This explains the great disconnect from how you feel, and how America actually is… That gigantic gulf between the two is due to the fact that our media, you don’t matter as long as they can tell advertisers that you are watching.  No one cares what’s best for the people.  They matter now, only money matters…

So do something.  Don’t vote for anyone, Democrat, Republican, or Independent who puts the interest of (compounded) interest, over his interest in you… And stop watching any MSNBC, FOX, ABC, NBC, PBS, OR CBS NEWS….  There is a much better source of news and you can do other things, like drive, while you are listening…..

  • One:  This is Gate’s retirement:  it needs to be big.
  • Two:  if this was a praise Obama book, it would sell very few copies.
  • Three:  Releasing the name-callings did it’s job:  this book is now hyped.
  • Four:  We are only seeing the parts released by the book’s propagandists.
  • Five:   Most of the statements are not news.
  • Six:  The Afghanistan Story was already told by Bernstein.  Gates replays the same conversations.
  • Seven:  It’s a book.  It’s about money. And we know that Gates did work well with Obama as he did with Bush W.
  • Eight:  We now know that Biden-Obama get along far better than did Bush-Cheney….

What is amazing is how quickly the extremists in the media raced to hype the slurs, as if they were given bonuses to make Obama look bad…   As for the rest of us… Yawn.  Based on what I’ve heard,  I don’t think I’m buying the book.  Are you?

This is the newest revelation from Snowden.  It should not be a surprise knowing what we already knew.

Essentially the NSA uses cookies to track your internet traffic.

Which brings up this moral question.

Cookies were allowed for commercial opportunity.  To find what you like, and then offer you ads for that activity.   That sort of benefits both advertisers and potential consumers.  if I as a consumer have to look at ads, aren’t i better served seeing ones I’m interested in, as opposed to ignoring all of them as I do in the News Journal?

Yes… I’ve benefited from cookies.

At the same time, someone out there, knows a lot about me.  And a lot about you…  Whereas computer technology can accurately predict where Peyton Manning will throw the ball on 3rd and 10, it can also predict when and what you will buy at Wal*mart with 90% accuracy…  One could get in big trouble if ones spouse ever got hold of that information….

But we were given ways of opting out of cookies, of removing them if we wished, and it continues to be allowed…

There are no laws against making bets on what someone will buy..   However.. THERE ARE LAWS AGAINST  government spying on you.   Against powers of prosecution innocent victims have no powers other than forcing prosecutors to produce evidence.   Now that evidence can be produce readily whether a person is guilty of anything or not,  there is no defense against state prosecution.

This disrupts commerce.  Now I can’t engage in commerce because my government may one day invade my domicile, grab my computer,  pull one or two bytes out of one or two gigabytes, and prosecute me.

So now, with the NSA, a government entity using cookies,  the actual use of cookies themselves may become under suspect of being illegal…

With continuous free use of cookies, using them to spy on you will continue.  Now is the time to  move to requiring cookie-use only with a court order, and hopefully, it must emanate from a court which has an advocate for privacy rights being the antagonistic force against the government’s claim for its right to spy….

So with the right advocacy, this crumbling cookie situation may lead to legislation ensuring our privacy is again under our control, and as a result… no longer forcing us to live like celebrities or former witches and fear Allan Loudell or the paparizzi  (of course, in the form of cookies)….   hiding in our bushes

With an editorial in the Washington Post titled “With No Consequences, Our Credibility Is At Stake“, Mr. David Ignatius makes some erroneous suppositions, then basis his argument upon them….

His words:  “It becomes obvious in recent weeks that President Obama whose restrained and realistic foreign policy I admire, needs to demonstrate that there are consequences for crossing the American Red Line.   Otherwise the coherence of the global system begins to dissolve…”

Is that true?  Do you lose respect for someone who doesn’t Immediately punish you after catching you red handed?  

That, I think, depends upon how much clout that person has.  Let’s look at this same situation in other types of relationships.

Parent-Child.  Do you punish your child for every single wrong thing they do?  From toddler up?  If so, where do you stop:  at 21 or when they move out?  Bottom  line, one would be hard pressed to find someone who belts their child over every little infraction. That childhood punishment would be the equivalent of war I think.  In fact, most of us who knew of a parent who did so, would feel obligated to call Child Services.  A parent could use a time out corner.  Take away a privilege, or in most cases, threaten a punishment and not deliver, and get sufficient results.

You reading this are grownups.  Some of you were whupped, many of you weren’t.. Is there anyone out there who doesn’t respect their parents because they weren’t excessively belted?  I’d guess very few.  The point is, that we respect people for making good choices; not for pettily following rules, which may be petty at times.  We respect people who make punishments fit the crime.  We disrespect those who pull out the belt over every tiny infraction. Those that suffer the belt, only do so because they know that if they run away, they have no food, no shelter, no toys, no money. They figure better to take the momentary abuse, than run.  The fact they choose to take it, doesn’t make it right.

Let’s jump to the workplace.  And look at the relationship with one’s supervisor.  We all know that the bosses we respect, are the older ones who practice wisdom, who arbitrarily apply punishments only when they are necessary.  And when they do, all means get exhausted first, before firing the employee, (probably the equivalent of a first strike in this situation). They never lose respect; they maintain it.  It is those brand new mangers no one respects, who walk with a book in their hand, and upon any infraction, they fire people. The movie depiction of the young kids who were fast food managers is a good example.  if someone uses multiple threats to fire, and then acts accordingly, he has no respect.  None.  In fact, he is disrespected  to the max simply because he fails to apply wisdom to the issues at hand.   In fact one has the most respect for a supervisor, who has the right and valid reason to fire you, but gives you one more chance.  Most of us respond and change our behavior to justify his wisdom in choosing that action.  Our actions prove him right, and we have tremendous respect for that.

Again, respect is not derivative of excessive behavior.  Respect is garnered more strongly to those whose decisions we trust

And what about respect in marriage?  Does one have to be the dominatrix and the other subservient, for a marriage to function?   Most would say divorce would be far better.  Do you really want a spouse threatening you, then taking those threats out on you while you sleep?  Not much sleep you will get.  Our future president once had to make that choice.  Under a lot of advice to dump her cheating husband, for some reason she chose not to.   And it worked.   It always works…

Which is why it is extemely odd for David Ignatius to propose that unless we go to war RIGHT NOW,  no one will respect the United States.  I beg to differ,  Just saw a poll of 93% against Syrian action, and only 6% in approval.  Truly, do you think that by going to war, those 93% are going to respect the president?  What a ridiculous notion!

Do you think most of the nations we have to work with, will respect us if we go into Syria, even after they have all stated they would not join, and would not support such an action?  If we attack Syria, will all those nations and their inhabitants hold us in higher esteem?  I think not.

Since in these four real life cases, the premise stated by David Ignatius is the exact opposite of what actually works best, most normal people would be hard pressed to accept that in the case of Syria, against natural law, it would achieve the desired results….

The premise that our respect comes only from our ability to deliver upon threats, is childish in the least.  Most people lose that idea forever with their first baby.

Next, David makes a very odd, perhaps misguided assertion.  He says:  “Look around the world and you can see how unscrupulous leaders are trying to attempt to exploit Obama’s attempt to disentangle America from the tumult of the Middle East… “

Is that true?  Is a nation that’s felt the onslaught of America’s military ordance within it’s own territory, really unscrupulous because it doesn’t automatically succumb to what the USA wants?  

In Yemen and Pakistan, we send drones overhead on a regular basis to take out hideaways.  Would Americans roll over if we were the ones getting our airspace violated?  Iraq, suffered American occupation for over 6 years.  Are they now unscrupulous, because they don’t automatically succumb to what the USA wants?  Iran, as actually since the last election, become far more moderate.   Even with that, despite our history, should they acquiesce to whatever the USA might want?

Almost as if wiping out the history of the past decade, he makes the assumption that only a military strike into Syria, would again pull these people back under America’s umbrella.  I really can’t see the reality David thinks he is standing on.  If you were in a bar with your best friend, and someone walking by suddenly suckered-punched him, really hard, putting him on the floor, according to David, you would get off your chair, shake hands with the perpetrator, and scold your best friend for whatever he must have done to make this nice guy knock him out.  According to David, you would not grab the perpetrator by the collar, and you would not attempt to slam your closed fist into his nose repeatedly!

What kind of world does David live in?  (Oh, I see.  He lives inside the Beltway! Ohhhhh)…

Then he says:  “Here is another thought to ponder. Is it possible the the Syrian chemical weapons attack was planned and coordinated with its key ally, the Quds Force of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards?  Surely they were in the loop.”

He knows this….  how?

Isn’t this what we call pure speculation?  Does he have the cable dispatches from the NSA?  How does he know they didn’t collude with North Korea?  They did before!   From the buzz I’ve heard the only people who really know what happened were on the ground at the attack, and inside Assad’s palace in Damascus.  But David makes the assumption that Iran must also be in on it, because it fits in nicely with his scenario of how the Middle East works.  Forget reality.  It is what’s in David’s head that matters.

He solidifies:  “The main rationale for military action by American and it’s allies should be restoring deterrence against the use of chemical weapons”.

Syria has been at war for 2 years.   if it hasn’t changed its attitude while being under attack from the constant bombardment by the rebels, how will a few more extra explosives change his will which seems bent on keeping power?  if you are going to get bombed by the USA, might as well do it now, when all they will be bombing, is already slated to be torn down and rebuilt…

He defines:  “The strike should be limited and focused. rather than a roundhouse swing aimed at ending the Syrian Civil War.  But it should be potent enough to disable Assad’s command and control structure so he can’t conduct similar actions in the future.”

So let’s be clear.  He spend all his effort describing how we need a gigantic threat to cow the middle east in line, and we are going to do it with very limited means.

let’s replay that bar scene above, except this time the stranger just flicks the ear of you friend…  Does your friend go: “gee, ha, ha, that was funny, Biff.  You a thousand laughs, Always a joker”?  My guess is that he will try to hurt the perpetrator, and you might help him.

So what does an ear flick prove?  Can you imagine John Kerry’s press conference, “We have sent a signal to the world;  if you use chemical weapons, we will flick your ear.”

But that is exactly what David is arguing for.  Saying we are going to teach the world a very valuable lesson in respect…. (flick.)

Then to make his point, he becomes very confusing.  He brings in Putin, and decries that Putin is determined to take advantage of our reticent president and the fatigued nation he represents.  Well, duh, that’s his job, isn’t it?  To pursue Russia’s interests? He next jumps to Saudi Arabia and Iran.  “US action against Assad, might not deter the Iranians, but it will at least make them think twice about crossing Obama’s red line.”

“Ok Iranian Council.  Has anyone thought about the US retaliation?” A hand goes up. “Has anyone else given thought to US retaliation?”  Another hand goes up.  “Ok, that’s twice, We’re cleared. So when should we begin our action?”

And then he comes to the point.

The contention among members of the Mideast, is that Obama is a weak president. Obama won’t change the opinion by a military strike. But a military strike will at least remind people that American military power is not to be taken lightly.

A weak president?  Hmm.  He sent a task force into Pakistan and captured Osama. His administration sends drones into three nations daily to hunt and kill citizens of those nations. He orchestrated the toughest economic sanctions against Iran hthat have ever been seen.  He hammered out an agreement between Israel and Morsi, that completely shut hostilities down on the West Bank. He changed the regime in Libya by going in with force.  He is forcing the Afghans to come to grips with the fact the US is leaving Afghanistan on a strict timetable, with no delaying action.

David must be having hallucinations.

So a dad must belt his child. So a young boss must fire over every single violation. So a married couple must divorce at the first sign of disagreement……

If none of these are true, neither is David’s argument over Syria.

There are many ways we can achieve the same ends, as does a parent, as does a wise boss, as does a willing spouse, without having to immediately take the path of our most forceful action!

The biggest question today…. is why does David no know this?

Not like Sam Donaldson got belted… but the old fashioned way. The way Dad did when his little kids messed up big…

The nation was starving to hear about gun control. The President issues a brief statement then asked for questions.

The first question was NOT about gun control. It was about the fiscal cliff. Most people outside the beltway don’t care that much about the fiscal cliff. 26 people were not pushed off a cliff.

The second question was NOT about gun control. It was about the fiscal cliff. Again, can we please get back to gun control….

The third question was NOT about gun control. It was about the fiscal cliff… Excuse me MR. Reporter? Did you miss the story and impact of the shooting last Friday? Or you don’t even care?

Near the end, Jake Tapper, and ABC News reporter finally asked…. noting that the president hasn’t done much on guns in the last four years and asking, “Where have you been?”

Obama answered exactly correct… I pulled us out of the Great Depression faster than did President Roosevelt. I resurrected the American Automobile industry, which would have failed. I was fighting two wars, one I finished, and the other I will soon finish in this term. It has not been a vacation…….

He should have responded….. “The real question is where have YOU been? You are the press; you define the arguments to which I have to give answer. Right here. Right now. In a press conference to cover this tragic disaster of a mass shooting in Connecticut, one of children 6 years old… I have to first answer 3 questions about the fiscal cliff, because to you, that is more important… The real answer, is if I wasn’t having to fight so many firefights ignited by the press, usually over nothing, I could get some real work done….”

“Reality” could not have more clearly answered Jake Tapper’s question…..

I’ll let others speak for me here….

 

Peggy Noonan:  Wall Street Journal. 

“It’s time to admit the Romney campaign is an incompetent one. It’s not big, it’s not brave, it’s not thoughtfully tackling great issues. It’s always been too small for the moment. All the activists, party supporters and big donors should be pushing for change. People want to focus on who at the top is least constructive and most responsible. Fine, but Mitt Romney is no puppet: He chooses who to listen to. An intervention is in order. ‘Mitt, this isn’t working.'”

 

David Brooks:  New York Times.

“Romney, who criticizes President Obama for dividing the nation, divided the nation into two groups: the makers and the moochers… The Republican Party, and apparently Mitt Romney, too, has shifted over toward a much more hyperindividualistic and atomistic social view – from the Reaganesque language of common citizenship to the libertarian language of makers and takers… He’s running a depressingly inept presidential campaign.”

 

Billy Kristol:  The Daily Standard

“It’s worth recalling that a good chunk of the 47 percent who don’t pay income taxes are Romney supporters—especially of course seniors… as well as many lower-income Americans (including men and women serving in the military) who think conservative policies are better for the country even if they’re not getting a tax cut under the Romney plan. So Romney seems to have contempt not just for the Democrats who oppose him, but for tens of millions who intend to vote for him.”

 

Matt Miller:  Washington Post

“Those in the 47 percent who aren’t seniors or veterans are mostly poor workers whose payroll taxes, at 15.3 percent (since the employer side of the tax effectively comes out of workers’ wages), leaves them taxed at a higher rate than was Mitt Romney on his $20 million income last year… To be so insultingly tone deaf and self-destructive even while being dead wrong and hypocritical on the substance is a perverse sort of accomplishment. It’s not easy to be this bad.”

 

Dick Morris:  Fox News

 

“There is no sin greater in a presidential race than telling the truth. Romney is being excoriated for accurately describing the situation in America today. Painting with broad strokes will do many individuals an injustice. But the fact remains that our electorate is basically bifurcated into those who pay taxes and those who receive benefits… Why do so many people feel Romney will be better at improving the economy and yet still plan to vote for Obama? The answer is that they care more about preserving their entitlements than about improving the economy.”

 

DelawarePolitics.net 

In the voice of the Republican Party, there is not one mention of Mitt Romney in any article on their front page, going all the way back to Sept. 7th.  Like they are embarrassed about him or something….

 

If everyone hates him, why would anyone in their right mind want to vote for him?

 

 

One of the items in the Wall Street Reform Act, a bill Mitt Romney says he wants to scrap on day one, makes executives pay for messing up.

Investors now are given a heads up on their CEO’s compensation plans and golden parachutes.  That information used to be only privy to the board.

Secondly, if a public traded company restates its earnings because of accounting errors,  it must seek compensation by any past, present executive office in excess of what was under reported.  Which means it comes out of the bosses pay…. Hooray! Rejoice. Rejoice.

Third,  if a large financial company is put into receivership, the FDIC can take back ANY compensation over the past two years, received by any senior executive or director, past or present, who was substantially  responsible of the loss of the firm…..

These are teeth you can’t get put in by a Republican.  Only Democrats have the balls to take on big banks and big financial firms.  We don’t need a goofy  Republican president with a pair of marbles.

If you ever want your vote to be heard or to make a statement, there is still time in Delaware to switch your party affiliation.

The last opportunity to leave the Republican party opened on Wednesday, last week, and continues until Friday, May 25th, 2012.

Again, if you want to your vote to stand only as a protest vote, like those who vote for Bob Barr or Ralph Nader fof President, then the Republican Party is still for you.

If you want your vote to have any power, you need to switch as soon as possible.

It makes people angry….

Which is why, we have to be very careful whether this video, which purports to show U.S. Marines urinating on dead Taliban fighters, is doctored of not….

If you’ve been in war, and most of the third world has, this action is believable.. After all, these dead characters had just tried to take the live ones life in a game of brinkmanship, and the Marines prevailed… There is sort of a giddiness that up-wells during moments like that. Sort of the real world’s equivalence of a touch-down dance… one that could easily happen during such a moment of euphoria… One person comes up with the idea, probably as a joke, and in their limited world of the moment, there appears to be no harm done, and it happens… Anyone who has ever been in war, knows a lot worse things could have happened. …

But there are a couple of problems with this easy answer. One, this is the Second Battalion of the Third Marine Corp.. It is one of the finest in the world. Very hard to believe that four guys who one day one day are building a hospital in a village to show we are the good guys, (who are positively trained and aware of how their personal behavior ripples out to determine the fate of the war), are peeing on cadavers of slain enemy warriors on the next. Yes, it can happen, of course. But I would believe David Anderson turned Muslim, before I’d believe THIS group would violate everything they’d been trained to do… (It would take hell freezing over for me to believe David Anderson had become a Muslim.)

Of course, I can be accused of turning a blind eye because ” I CAN’T HANDLE THE TRUTH”… lol.. I’d say, no… I’d think the video was faked because that, considering all the players, all the activity, a fake video would actually make more sense, than having four random Marines desecrating several enemy bodies…

How? You Ask?

Ok, you twisted my arm so tight it hurts…if you promise to let go, I’ll tell you……

The United States is pulling out of Afghanistan. That means there will be no market for munitions. Currently the United States and Afghanistan have a very fragile relationship. There is little trust. We do not trust Karzai and his way of governing through corruption. We know he is in cahoots with the Taliban. Not publicly, but privately. We don’t tell him much, because it will cost American lives. He, upon realizing we are acting unilaterally, doesn’t trust us at all, because we will one, not confide in him, and two, not listen to him because the intelligence he could be giving us, could be leading us into a trap… One that will cost American lives.

Anything that pours gasoline onto this fire, will reap great amounts of money for people who sell weapons for a living… The absolutely very last thing those people want, is a cessation of hostilities. They will do anything possible to prevent that from happening… Not publicly of course, but surreptitiously .

So there is this tremendous pressure building, much of it emanating from the America Right and remnants of what once was called the Military Industrial Complex, that does not want this conflict to end…. And that pressure, is what makes this video popping up right now, kinda suspicious…

I’m no expert, but even as I looked at the difference of shadows between the bodies and the soldiers, I noticed the sun was at different angles.. (you can tell by tracing the shadow to the object and the angles should be identical). So I asked a 14 year old knowledgeable about video editing if such a thing was possible.. He responded by running the video through gaming software, and replaying the video with miniature anime characters holding umbrellas dancing on the dead bodies as the urine cascaded down… It was that easy…

So, looking with a clear eye, we have the motive. We have the means. And we have the evidence.

Of course, I could be over-speculating; it could be a real event, but I will hold my breath until the military investigation is complete. We have the Marines, we know by now who they are, we know if they are guilty or innocent. If guilty, we will condemn them and punish them just like we do a touchdown dance that goes too far… If it turns out they are innocent, and this is a circumstance of trying to poison the well, we can recognize the real enemy: those who sell weapons to both sides, and negate their influence on the diplomacy of that region…

It would be no different than two people at work, who upon finding they’ve been manipulated into hating each other, join forces and together, expel the perpetrator of all problems…