I thought in 2012 that Obama was right about Russia and Romney was wrong, and I still think so: the idea that Russia is the greatest threat to the US is absurd.
But everything about Dem politics and rhetoric requires Dems to do what @PaulBegala did:
There's a major irony when it comes to partisan politics and Russia: Obama was everything Trump was accused of being. Obama was eager to avoid confrontation with Putin. He resisted sending lethal arms to Ukraine (Trump did) and denied they were a grave threat (even after Crimea).
There's no way to overstate the utter insanity of the US media and the Democratic Party spending 5 years affirming a completely deranged conspiracy theory -- that Trump was controlled by and captive to the Kremlin through blackmail -- when everything negated that demented tale.
Obama - not in 2009 but in 2016: the last year of his presidency, two years after the annexation of Crimea - emphatically argued what, today, is prohibited, what will get you smeared as a Kremlin asset: Ukraine is of vital interest to Russia, not the US:
Thanks to those pointing out that Romney's exact quote was that Russia is the "number one geopolitical foe" of the US: a claim I disagreed with then and disagree with now. Here's what Democrats did to mock him for it:
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Please remember that any criticisms of the President of the United States during this crisis is immoral, disloyal, plays into Putin's hands, and likely means that you're a Kremlin asset or useful idiot. Now is the time for caution and patriotism, not criticism or questioning. 🇺🇸
Important reminder from the past about our collective responsibilities now (though such reminders aren't really necessary given how often and emphatically employees of media corporations such as @kasie are saying the same thing or worse):
Just a stunning thing to read from someone whose corporate job title is "journalist" -- criticizing the president is illegitimate:
This is the moment when US journalists really get to shine. They put on their toughest war rhetoric. Tell Americans about the virtues of sacrifice. And summon the courage to all unite to denounce Putin and assure everyone all the blame lies with him and him alone. It's inspiring.
Under Obama, Russia annexed Crimea.
Under Biden, Russia recognized the sovereignty and independence of two territories of Ukraine.
Under Trump, he did none of this.
Should this cause any reevaluation of whether Trump was, in fact, a blackmail-controlled puppet of the Kremlin?
Please be advised that any questioning of US policy or. the prevailing US narrative during this sensitive time constitutes the crime of treason, according to Harvard Law Professor @tribelaw. Treason is punishable by death, so it's probably best to tread *very* carefully.
Those who most flamboyantly proclaim that they are fighting fascists continue to embrace and wield the defining weapons of despotism.
The tactics Trudeau is employing are a decade in the making, and are part of a much broader plan to criminalize and then crush dissent.
Episodes like this demonstrate just how propaganda functions. We're so well-trained to instantly recognize these tyrannical attacks on dissent as autocratic and tyrannical when used by enemies of the West, but barred from seeing them the same way when used by our own governments.
Many have forgotten that the reason @FreedomofPress was created -- by @DanielEllsberg, Laura Poitras, transparency activists, myself -- was neocons like Joe Lieberman pressured financial companies and Amazon to choke off WikiLeaks and terminate their access with no due process.
In 2010, when the Obama DOJ tried but failed to find evidence of criminality against WikiLeaks, neocons like Lieberman opted for *extra-legal punishment* - pressuring companies to ban them like Dems do now to demand adversaries be censored by Big Tech.
How can it be "unlawful" to protest at "sites"? Obviously, certain conduct undertaken in advance of a protest -- violence, obstruction, intimidation -- can be unlawful. But how can protest itself be deemed inherently unlawful as is being done here?
Yet again we find that the people in the west who most vocally and flamboyantly claim they're fighting fascism are the ones who seize and wield the defining weapons of fascists: censorship, punishment without due process, criminalizing of protests, imprisoning journalists.
This is absolutely true. And it would be the same reaction if Trudeau were doing this against protesters whose ideology western elites liked instead of hated:
Uau! Era tão raro que as pessoas durante o debate sobre a liberdade de expressão tivessem a capacidade ou a honestidade de compreender esse ponto básico sobre meu argumento que, ouvir isso de uma pessoa que discorda de mim era como encontrar água depois de semanas no deserto:
Aqui está o vídeo que ele citou onde expliquei meu raciocínio: que dar o poder de censura ao estado é *mais provável levar ao fascismo. Em quase 20 anos de jornalismo, nunca tive um argumento distorcido como o que aconteceu há 2 semanas no Brasil:
E uma última vez: a liberdade de expressão que defendo *não* é só um valor americano (muitos nos EUA a rejeitam e há muito defendem a censura). Vem do esquerdismo internacional e da tradição intelectual judaica, tornando ainda mais repelente ser chamado de nazista por defendê-lo.