As explained many times, the split between nationalists and globalists inside the deep state changed the situation a little bit. It has given the world two comparatively peaceful years (with the US continuing only the wars they have started before). That's fine. The globalists are, unfortunately, too strong yet and have reached control again. Without any elections. Except for the Vietnam and Korea wars, where millions of civilians were murdered. Ok, the Korea war was fought on a legitimate base, a UN resolution. But how it was fought - bombing civilians and civilian infrastructure - and the resulting number of victims made it much more horrible than the Iraq war. If you do not count the magnitude of murdered civilians, but the criminal evil related to the means to fight, then supporting terrorists is certainly eviler. No, the Ukrainian stuff was played mainly by deep state actors, and this continues. If those CIA actors have party affiliations or not is quite irrelevant - elections do not matter for CIA. BTW, try to become at least consistent: If elections matter, then Obama has repsonsibility for the crimes done during his presidency. In particular for criminal support of terrorists in Syria and Libya as well as the continuation of the W started wars. You cannot blame some Congress or so for this. Obama has withdrawn some troops, thus, he could have withdrawn them all. Same for Trump, no difference. Both made such claims, but both finally followed the deep state and did not withdraw. My position is consistent: If the deep state is united, elections don't matter. Only if the deep state is split, some other minor issues, like elections, gain importance. Nonsense. Most of my sources have defended a similar position, with Trump being simply unpredictable in comparison with known criminal Clinton. Once no certain predictions have been made, they cannot fail. Again back to war counting? The main actions of W were classical wars, against Afghanistan and Iraq. That the CIA has murdered around the world all the times on some small scale is another question, but the Syrian and Libyan wars were Why should I share the bees in your bonnet? The Bushs and Reagan are well-known as war criminals, as Clinton and Obama. We have a full agreement about the Bushs and Reagan, so there is no reason to mention them. Looks like you believe your own fantasies that I somehow follow Rep propaganda. I simply do not see any reason to repeat Dem propaganda in a discussion with you, that's all that creates the Rep bias in my replies. If there is something worth to be known, describe it. Once you give any evidence which contradicts my claims (whatever claim has motivated this reply) I will not change my position and continue to make the same claims. You have to often repeat that "you know nothing" that it is known to be a sort of reflex if you have nothing to answer. Two inaccuracies - I have not mentioned Facebook, and I have mentioned something else too, namely the Russian DNC hack conspiracy. Once you have no reasonable answers, don't wonder that the Reps use the same arguments all the time. Sorry, but why should I care about Trump familia's corruption? Corrutption tn the US is a very good thing - imagine a non-corrupt US with that military budget. They could easily nuke everybody else and would do this. What else do you object to? The support of Israel? That's fine, it has seriously damaged the US reputation among the Arabs, except their closest ally, SA. Damaging the relations with SA is what the Dems do, just to fret Trump, I like this subdivision of labor.
I quote you. Your posts are not fantasies. They parrot Republican media feeds - no matter how ridiculous. Your fantasies of "deep state" splits will start making sense only after you gather enough information to give you an idea of who, what, and where, the American "deep state" comprises. Hint: none of them are "nationalists", any more than Trump is. As Reagan and Bush and W did - including setting up the infrastructure etc to accomplish those evils. Trump is doing the same. Obama and Clinton did much less of that, even though handed the means and the setup. It governs his behavior. And he has an army now - with nukes. They were less evil than the Iraq War, by your criteria - dishonorable mercenaries, mass murder of civilians, etc. Nonsense. He is only responsible for the crimes he committed or freely allowed. No, we don't. The reason you would mention them is that they are primarily responsible for the US evils you misattribute to others - and Trump is a continuation of their governance. Your position is the contrapositive of that: If elections matter, the deep state must be split. (Reasoning as you claim would require that you obtain information about the deep state to begin with, which you will never do). They were dirty wars featuring all the evils you disparage - in much greater magnitude and to much worse effect. Syria has been a mere side effect, Libya a hangover from Reagan, - the Iraq invasion and occupation was the big deal, the serious horrowshow of your time. And Obama's failure to prosecute its perpetrators led directly to Trump. The US should not fail to prosecute again. Reagan got off, Bush got off (with William Barr's help - that's when he showed his talent and assumed his role as high level Republican cleaner), W&Cheney were allowed to walk free - and that's how we got Trump.
I have many times asked you to quote me, you quote essentially nothing beyond the last post. I have enough information about this. I don't quote it because it is in part contradictory and I have no background to decide who is right, But I see sufficient confirmation for such a split. Further excuses for Dem war criminals disposed of. He freely allowed child-head-cutters in Syria being paid by the US. https://twitter.com/Souria4Syrians/status/761248812254031872 Trump is, of course, also responsible for the continuation of the criminal US occupations in Afghanistan and Iraq started by W, and in Syria and the participation in the Yemen war started by Obama. Once you continue the crimes, you are also responsible for those parts of the crimes which happen under your rule. "If elections matter, then the deep state must be split" and "If the deep state is not split, then elections don't matter" are logically equivalent. And given that you have no idea about my sources, your subsequent reasonings is disposed of as meaningless. Indeed, and Clinton and Obama got off too I doubt Trump will reach anything in this direction, even if everything is available (public admissions of Ukrainian government guys about their conspiracy with Clinton to support her during the election). What else would be necessary?
You don't. He couldn't stop it. That was indeed failure. But he didn't set it up - W did that, in line with Reagan's foreign policy. And he did roll back some of it, reduce its prevalence, curb the official support, etc. So W bears the most responsibility, and Obama some of the leftover. Nobody is excusing Dem war criminals. But they have been war criminals to the extent, and only to the extent, that they have been complicit with evils set in motion by others. It's just a historical circumstance: the Dems didn't create and launch this misery - this is a Republican Party horrowshow, specifically and centrally. If the ideologically and personally compromised US Supreme Court had not handed W the Presidency, we would have no Iraq War as we know it - no Syrian meltdown, no funding of headcutters, etc. Well that explains a lot. We get to the "you are stupid" part immediately. Partly. A lot depends on whether you tried to curb them, reduce them, etc. Obama took the drone wars and torture prisons out of CIA control, for example - Trump restored the CIA's role. Trump will therefore bear more responsibility for the resultant evils of that aspect of US behavior. I can often name them. You apparently can't. The American Heritage Institute, for example. Fox News. The Murdoch press. My contention is that you have no idea of your sources. You are being played. And it's not hidden, or difficult to see - for those with information about US propaganda and politics, or even simple physical reality (climate change, who started the Iraq War, etc).
Barr None Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! We come 'round to this point: The key to understanding Barr's letter is to scrutinize what he says according to the point of how it is not a disqualifying lie. (#316↑) And so it goes; we're pretty much into that question, at this point: It turns out that special counsel Robert Mueller was just as upset with Attorney General William Barr's characterization of the Trump-Russia report — and the ensuing public discussion — as many Americans were. On March 24, Barr released his four-page summary of the special counsel's report in which he said Mueller found no evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. And while Mueller didn't absolve President Donald Trump of an obstruction of justice charge, Barr did, saying he didn't think the evidence the special counsel's team provided met that standard. But according to multiple reports, Mueller was unhappy with Barr's synopsis, and the type of media coverage that synopsis prompted. Days after the attorney general sent his summary to Congress, Mueller wrote the Justice Department leadership to say that Barr's letter “did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance” of the full report. “There is now public confusion about critical aspects of the results of our investigation. This threatens to undermine a central purpose for which the Department appointed the Special Counsel: to assure full public confidence in the outcome of the investigations,” he continued. To rectify the situation, Mueller recommended that Barr release the full 448-page report's introduction and executive summaries. A day after the letter was sent, Barr and Mueller spoke on the phone for around 15 minutes. Mueller complained that news coverage of the summary, particularly the obstruction bit, could mislead the public about what the report said. But when Barr pressed Mueller if the special counsel believed the summary was inaccurate, Mueller said he didn't, according to the Washington Post. This is a big moment. It further confirms — from the highest authority — that the initial skepticism expressed by many after the release of Barr's summary was justified. The attorney general skewed the public impression of the report before even a full sentence was released, leading many to believe that the Trump campaign had done nothing wrong whatsoever. But the report clearly shows that's not true. (Ward↱) We'll have to see if we can dig up the transcript, yet to be posted, for today's episode of Hardball, on msnbc. It's true, I always wonder who really needs it said like this or that, but there, at least, I know is an example of someone discussing the actual implications of Mueller's letter compared to its assurance that Barr's letter was not explicitly inaccurate. We return, again, to #316, above: For Americans, there is a lot about what just happened with the Barr summary that they will not see even if it happens right in front of them .... .... part of what our neighbor misses in his question about simply thinking that the summary given is enough is what Barr's maneuvering actually represents. Most Americans don't know the once and would-be summary was extraneous, not part of the Attorney General's job. Furthermore, our neighbor has consistently, over the course of years, shown a lack of comprehension about American nuance. The idea of what Barr has done will seem considerably less dramatic if one does not understand at least something of the expectations attorneys face. It is true, this is part of what some perspectives on the Barr botchery overlooked in the early hours and days; as noted those weeks ago, some should have known better. Still, though when the Devil can hide in the detail, it can be helpful to understand a little about what those details are and how they work. Otherwise, clarifications of summaries might look unproblematic (cf., #318↑) according to pseudomathematical pretenses failing to quantify what they do not recognize exists. There is, of course, a counterpoint that the details, this time, are not really so subtle, at this point. The extraneity of Attorney General Barr's letters regarding the Mueller report is not insignificant, but it does seem to shrug and step aside for the Mueller letter. All attorneys have obligations toward integrity, conflict of interest, and basic appearances thereof. For all the dirty business we accuse lawyers of getting away with, there are some things that are supposed to be sacred. An attorney is not supposed to outright lie, and this actually looks like what happens when a lawyer verges up against that threshold. We never really should run up against that standard, noted in #319↑, above, yet here we are. What comes next is wordplay, dueling dissections of what Mr. Barr said compared to what the Mueller report actually says. But it is also important to note that the Attorney General might well have been caught in a very important, substantial, and demonstrable lie. When prevaricating before Congress, Barr said he did not know what Robert Mueller thought of the summary-not-summary; it seems the AG had already received the letter and spoken to Mueller over the phone about it. ____________________ Notes: Ward, Alex. "Mueller to Attorney General Barr: You 'did not fully capture' my report". Vox. 30 April 2019. Vox.com. 30 April 2019. http://bit.ly/2vErq4Z
This remembers standard deep state rhetorics, except that instead of "deep state" you use "Rep". Looks like the Reps rule, even if Dems control presidency and both houses, they appear helpless and cannot even stop what evil Reps have started. I think the version with the deep state instead of Reps somehow more plausible. Even if one cannot exclude completely that what the deep state wants is more close to what the Reps want. Answering which is a trivial example of the logical equivalence between "A => B" and "not B => not A", we read: Interesting. We conclude that whenever I use quite trivial tautologies so that iceaura has nothing to answer, "you are stupid" follows immediately. Obama preferred to murder himself, instead of leaving this to other people. Probably because the CIA did not murder enough people. He increased the use by a factor of ten according to https://www.thebureauinvestigates.c...r-in-numbers-ten-times-more-strikes-than-bush Trump had obviously no interest to murder himself. SCNR.: On a really dubious Rep site, I have seen a funny theory that Obama liked to take the videos from the drone shots home to look at them in full privacy. Answering we read LOL. I have no TV at all (the complete access to what comes on whatever TV is via youtube). Googling about what is controlled by Murdoch I have not found anything I would read. When my sources refer to Western media, their links also seldom end in Fox news or so. "American Heritage Institute" I had to google, found some facebook page which distributes memes about the founding fathers, quite uninteresting. So, as expected, your guesses are completely off. But, ok, these sources have abilities to control my mind or so: Ok, one can invent the theory that those sources are in a consistent way, all the time, playing my real sources. Not plausible too. Whenever they refer to their sources, the results are usually quite different. The much more plausible scenario is a different one: There are arguments you hate because you have no counterarguments. Once they are good arguments, they are used everywhere outside your bubble. That means, used by your most hated US fringe right-wing sources as well as by my own international too. The origin is probably quite different for different cases.
You may find this of interest: "The attempt to change the government in Venezuela and the unequivocal support of the opposition from the United States can hardly be considered a spontaneous phenomenon. ..." "... The restrictive measures against Caracas reflect patterns that are well described in academic literature. A change of political regime or a change of the domestic political course is one of the most common reasons for introduction of unilateral sanctions. They often precede attempts of coup d’état, ..." from: http://valdaiclub.com/a/highlights/us-sanctions-against-venezuela/
They have yet to be good arguments - or even arguments at all. And the vocabulary - the accusation of "hate", the attempts to bothside every issue, etc - is of course straight from the Republican media playbook. The exact same vocabulary and rhetorical approach - you and them. No matter how idiotic. No matter how idiotic. And I was also correct in noting you could not name them. Look at you suckering for the silly Goldberg about "liberal fascism", while having to Google the American Heritage Institute - one of the major media players in a short list that includes the National Review and the American Enterprise Institute - for example. How would you come to identify such sources, the dominant shapers and framers of US mass media news, as "fringe"? Ignorance, of course. Especially: you don't know who is paying whom for what. You have no idea who is paying Goldberg, or how he came to be on TV and write books and so forth. You just buy into his swill. And since you don't know anything, you don't know that W actually did stuff like that - along with favored members of his Cabinet, such as Rice. The general rule of thumb - that Republicans are always projecting when they slander - is not part of your intellectual toolbox. Yep. It's kind of odd, but there it is in your posts. You're essentially a trained parrot. And support it by quoting hundreds of examples of ludicrous foolishness expressed in more or less identical vocabulary by you, even following the timelines of self-contradiction as the wingnut media reverses course. Your sources are visible in your posting, in other words - how you account for them is of no interest to anyone but you, and only if you have any self respect left. Meanwhile, once you have got past the various falsehoods promulgated by Barr initially (he's backtracking a bit, so you will be too in a few days) and amplified by the corporate rightwing media in the US (as repeated by you, here), the content of the Mueller report will remain - it's damning, even without the redacted portions.
as/re: "Deep State" You might find: Unmasking the Administrative State by John Marini a worthwhile read In short He addresses the evolution of the shift of power to the unelected administrators and court functionaries and away from the people and their elected representatives. ................... I ain't sure that that is what people meanedr, when referring to "the deep state"?
Just to exemplify: That "the Dems" have "controlled the Presidency and "both houses" is bullshit from US wingnut media. You are parroting that same propaganda feed, once again. Nobody - not the Dems, not the left, and not the Reps or the right - can uninvade Iraq, or avoid the consequences of invading Iraq, or in any other way restore what was destroyed by the invasion of Iraq. Much of what the evil Reps started by that evil doing cannot be stopped by anyone. It can only be recovered from, ameliorated, adjusted to, paid for, etc. Likewise with the latest Republican president and Congress - as with fascist movements granted power in the past, they do evil when they can, which is most of the time these days; others can only oppose, rehabilitate, clean up after, etc. Elections have always mattered, see? The people who use the term "deep State" with reference to the US have no idea what they "mean" by the term. They commonly have no clear idea of even the shallow State in the US - they don't know how the ordinary and public and visible US State functions, in the first place. What they have this "deep state" doing cannot have been accomplished by any identifiable entity, and was on record done by several different and mutually exclusive candidates for "deep state". Bureaucratic inertia and asscovering and rent-seeking and collusion would be one of those candidates, but they have no consistency - that's probably not what launched the torture prison program and land invasion and so forth of the Iraq War, for example. Administrative State malfunctions do not account for the Iraq War, or the current border policy, or what the Republicans are doing in Venezuela. But there has been a common denominator of reference: corporate capitalist influence. In a large majority of their references, what they have labeled "deep State" doings have been the doings of major corporate capitalist interests - by way of corruption and bribery and lobbyist pressure and collusion and control of the US media and so forth. So that would be a fairly plausible candidate for a "deep State" in the US, albeit not a State agency in the technical sense. The problem with it is that most purveyors of "deep State" rhetoric are firmly attached to an ideology in which private enterprise via market capitalism brings freedom and nonviolence and so forth - that only government oppresses and lies and makes war and manipulates behind the scenes and the like. So the behaviors of the corporate capitalist Trump in office - such as his appointment of the comically whitewashing Barr, who stated in public as his official Attorney General assessment that when Trump tried to have the Mueller investigation shut down by getting rid of Mueller (as documented in the Mueller report among many other places) Trump was merely "memorializing" some kind of position that the New York Times had compromised Mueller by publishing false accusations - are invisible to them.
One of the side issues in the Mueller report rolling waste is what happened to William Barr in the eyes of former associates and friends - apparently they didn't see this disgrace coming, and are bandying explanations: https://washingtonmonthly.com/2019/05/01/william-barr-watched-too-much-fox-news/
Then please explain who controlled them after the 2008 elections. Nice way to justify the failure of the Dems to do anything different from the Reps. What I see from this argument is that elections are unable to change the direction, it is the same (more wars, more fascism), except how fast this happens. So, elections matter because the movement toward fascism becomes a little bit slower? About the deep state: A deep state is an unofficial group which holds real power which officially some government institution should hold, or which is officially illegal but not persecuted (say various CIA crimes). The players may be as part of the government (if, say, some bureaucrat has real power beyond his legal power), as outside the government (your beloved corporations via their lobbies, but also lobbies from other organizations, think tanks, or even foreign states). While you seem to think that the players are important, I don't think so, and therefore I do not participate in speculations about this. What is important is that it controls foreign policy in a sufficiently strong way, so that people can elect presidents which seem (based on what they claim during the election campaign) quite peaceful but behave, once they have reached power, much less peaceful.
Parrot. There was no such "them". The Dems are not a fascist Party acting in concert, as the Reps are. You are parroting your US wingnut media sources again. Just for starters: in 2008 the economy had been crashed by the Republicans. Remember? They did many things different, and almost nothing the same, in the five or six months they could act at all - a lot of them, anyway (the Blue Dogs excepted, of course). And they managed to do that in the face of the Crash, the Iraq War, and the aftermath of Katrina. Your famous eyesight again. Toward fascism is a different direction than away from fascism. The revocation of major pieces of the New Deal, the blocking of public health insurance, the Iraq War, the Crash of 08 - that's what the US got by electing Republicans. Those were each, individually, changes in "direction" as large as the US has had since WWII. The US election that brought the Iraq War mattered. A lot. To the entire Western civilized world. And the failure to prosecute the perpetrators of that War, in the aftermath of the disaster it was, in the wake of the collective discovery by everyone that it was founded in lies and criminal conspiracy, brought us to this - we have a report, the Mueller report, that lays out the case against this President and everyone anywhere near him, and we may not be able to act on it.
Instead, the Reps are always in concert. I remember a lot such interesting concert pieces played by Anti-Trumpers with Trump. Fine, but why they have not even stopped the preparation for new wars in Kosovo, Libya, and Syria? If starting these wars was "away from fascism", then I have no problem with fascism. (To repeat, your internal problems with that "fascism" are nothing I care about.) Sorry for Eurocentrism, but the Yugoslavian war, in particular, the support of Croatian fascist ethnic cleansing in Krajina and Kosovo were a more important change in direction. These actions destroyed the remains of international law, replacing it with the law of the jungle, where the US could do what they liked. The US election that brought the Kosovo war mattered even more. A lot. They destroyed the remains of international law, for the whole world (not only the Western uncivilized one). But, strangely, regarding foreign relations, it does not matter who is elected, there will be new wars that matter. Oh, I'm so sorry. But the failure also started earlier, with the failure to prosecute the perpetrators of the Kosovo war, which was also founded in lies and criminal conspiracy, as well as the support of Croatian fascists during their ethnic cleansing operation in Krajina. All this may be misunderstood as I'm attacking only Dem wars, you attacking only Rep wars. The essential difference is that you defend the Dem wars - they are somewhat minor, unimportant, or prepared by Reps in a way that Dems were unable to stop them or so. I reject both.
Bingo. That would depend on who the players are. You don't know who they are, so your estimation of their influence is entirely a product of your imagination. And your imagination is completely at the mercy of the US corporate media efforts. It also depends on the evaluation of the Presidential candidates - apparently you think Trump "seemed" quite peaceful, based on what you took to be his claims, so that his behavior in office was a change that needs explanation. That isn't evidence of deep State influence, that's evidence of extraordinary gullibility on your part. Trump was nothing if not transparent - he was right out front, his background as a major con man an open book, his rhetoric boilerplate fascist demagoguery, his followers and supporters the exact same people who brought the world the Iraq War. And now he is behaving just as he always has, when cornered by the law: stonewall defiance, corruption of all possible, and big lie tactics. The question now is whether the US government has been too crippled by the Republican Party to enforce the law. - - - - I have defended no wars. None. The Kosovo War was a triviality compared with the Iraq War, and the Kosovo War was not started by the US at all - no US elections were involved. If you have to find a Western politician to blame for the NATO intervention, it would be Tony Blair. You are drawing false equivalences between the Democratic and Republican Parties, just as your Republican media sources promulgate, to deflect and obscure responsibility for various disasters and evils brought on by the Republican Party. You're a parrot.
Not that much. All one needs to know is that up to Obama time they were globalists. And, of course, that an essential part of them is not elected, else elections would matter much more. First of all, he behaved more peaceful in Syria, NK, and all the places where he behaved not that peaceful (Israel, SA vs. Iran) this was known from the start. This changed only with Bolton/Pompeo coming to power, they are deep state globalists. Your fantasies about me disposed of. You have defended the Dem presidents who started them. All the wars under Dem presidents you have either downplayed in their importance or attributed to the Reps, who have somehow been able to prepare them in such a way that the Dem president had no other choice as to start them. See: It was a Dem president, Clinton, who started this war. It was a war of aggression by the NATO, and the NATO is a US puppet collection and Tony Blair has even been named a lapdog of the US. And it is the US which gained the most of the war - namely a very large US base with criminal gangs under US control around it.
If you don't know who they are, you don't know that. Bolton and Pompeo came to power along with Trump, and with Trump's approval - they were allies of Trump before he was elected. Bolton was meeting with Trump during the transition, at Trump's request. A vote for Trump was a vote for Bolton's foreign policy. If Bolton is a deep State globalist, so is Trump. No US person started the Kosovo War. The former citizens of Yugoslavia started that war, all by themselves. You can't change the historical record by namecalling. Clinton did not start the war in Yugoslavia. Blair was pressuring the US to lead NATO forces into an ongoing war, a war already started, and Clinton was holding back (partly because he was being impeached and otherwise harassed by the Republican Congress, which limited his powers, and partly because he didn't want to commit US soldiers on the ground as Blair did). That's because I post from an information base in historical fact. It's simply a fact, for example that the Second Iraq War (the invasion and occupation) was far bigger, more significant, and more evil, than all those other wars put together. And that war was started by the US Republican Party, W&Cheney presiding. I haven't even defended the Dem presidents who didn't start them - like Clinton, the least warlike President of the entire generation, who did lots of bad stuff. Correcting your errors is not the same as defending anyone. And that brings things around to the OP: We now know that the Mueller report corroborates the public information of Trump's behavior - which involved obstruction of justice, violations of the emoluments clause, and campaign aid deals with hostile foreign powers.
they were playing the sarah palin card trigger happy palin & the tea-party-mercenarys i can see them they are right over there & bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb iran double draw card ticket to the new cold war with a nuclear hair trigger. yet ... look what has happened. an economic cold war has been started with russia & china why ? because american corporate have outsourced all their american jobs and manufacturing to china and now they want all their economic national power back after they destroyed their own currency market, when they already sold it down the river decades ago.
LOL. Being an ally and meeting him is something different from having power. Even more nonsense. A split does not mean that those in different parts cannot be friends anymore. And this nonsense tops it all. Nobody cares much about the civil war, even if the UCK was as Western-paid as many other terrorist organizations. It was the NATO aggression that matters. The Yugoslavian civil war participants did not attack any NATO member, there was no UNSC support for an attack, thus, a clear case of NATO aggression. Your blaming Blair for this is laughable. Even if he advocated the war, a certain No by Clinton would have left him with no power to do anything. BTW, I remember German sources which have claimed that Madeleine Albright played a major warmongering role.
Not different from being Trump's chosen foreign policy advisor, with personal access to the Presidency, starting well before Trump was elected. Bolton was Trump's chosen ally and policy advisor from day one. There was no change Trump's foreign policy when Bolton was appointed to oversee it formally. There was no split between Bolton and Trump. Ever. Trump campaigned on Bolton's foreign policy, and everyone who supported Trump supported that foreign policy. That includes you. The war existed, and the entire Western political establishment (especially NATO, under public pressure from its members such as the UK under Blair) cared a great about it, for more than a year before Clinton did anything military in the arena. Clinton did not start the Kosovo War. That's simply a fact, whether you care about it or not. NATO aggression did not start the Kosovo War. Blair advocated intervention in the war, which had already started. He pressured Clinton and NATO to intervene, to bring soldiers even. He was the primary advocate of NATO intervention. Blair did not start the Kosovo War. The list of people who did not start the Kosovo War is quite long. Meanwhile: Again you declare that failing to stop things started by others is equivalent to starting them oneself. That's the current Republican Party line, the propaganda schtick employed all over US media for more that thirty years to absolve the Republican Party of responsibility for what it has started and what it has done since 1980. These are adult men, marketing this line of bs. Unlike their victims and patsies, such as you, they know better. They know who started the Second Iraq War, and the First as well - William Barr made his bones getting HW Bush off the hook for that one. And to sell their line of bothsides bs, they have to bury the Mueller report - delay its presentation and consequences long enough to see it forgotten. Because the behavior documented in that report is almost impossible to blame on a general "everybody", and very difficult to misrepresent if it's fresh in awareness - black and white text on the written page in front of people.
