Utopia Talk / Politics / Trump thanks Putin

Im better then you 2012 UP Football Champ	Fri Aug 11 09:31:53 http://www...ladimir-putin-diplomats-241498 Trump thanks Putin for expelling U.S. diplomats, infuriating State Department By NAHAL TOOSI and MADELINE CONWAY 08/10/2017 04:54 PM EDT Updated 08/10/2017 08:00 PM EDT President Donald Trump on Thursday thanked Russian President Vladimir Putin for expelling American diplomats from Russia on the grounds that “we’re going to save a lot of money,” prompting dismay among many of the rank-and-file at the State Department. “I want to thank him because we’re trying to cut down our payroll, and as far as I’m concerned I’m very thankful that he let go of a large number of people because now we have a smaller payroll,” Trump told reporters at his golf club in Bedminster, New Jersey, according to a pool report. “There’s no real reason for them to go back,” he added. “I greatly appreciate the fact that we’ve been able to cut our payroll of the United States. We’re going to save a lot of money.” Russia recently announced that it would expel hundreds of U.S. diplomats from its soil to retaliate for sanctions the U.S. put on the Kremlin. Those sanctions are in response to Russia’s suspected attempts to meddle in last year’s U.S. presidential election through a disinformation campaign and cyberattacks on Democratic Party officials. Trump, whose campaign’s relationship with Russia is the subject of an ongoing federal investigation, had pushed back against the sanctions bill, but signed it into law after it passed Congress with veto-proof majorities in both chambers. The State Department has not yet released the details of how it will handle the drawdown; Russia has demanded it keep no more than 455 people in its diplomatic missions there. But many, if not most, of the positions cut will likely be those of locally hired Russian staffers. The local staff who are let go will likely get severance payments, but cost savings are possible in the long run. The U.S. diplomats forced to leave Moscow will in most cases be sent to other posts, sources said. It wasn't clear if Trump's remarks were meant to be in jest, and he gave no solid indication either way. In any case, the comments did not go down well among employees at the State Department, where many U.S. diplomats have felt ignored and badly treated by the Trump administration. Some noted that locally hired staff members affected the most are crucial to American diplomats' work overseas. A senior U.S. diplomat serving overseas called Trump's remarks "outrageous" and said it could lead more State Department staffers to head for the exits. "This is so incredibly demoralizing and disrespectful to people serving their country in harm's way," the diplomat said. "I kid you not, I have heard from three different people in the last five minutes," one State Department official told POLITICO shortly after Trump's comments. "Everyone seems pretty amazed. This statement is naive and shortsighted. It sends a terrible signal to local employees everywhere." "THANK Putin?" another bewildered State Department official responded. "I don't have words that are printable to describe my reaction." Barbara Stephenson, the president of the American Foreign Service Association, the diplomats' union, also weighed in with a carefully worded statement: "America’s leadership is being challenged by adversaries who would like to see us fail. We cannot let that happen," she said. "With all the threats facing our nation, we need a properly resourced and staffed Foreign Service more than ever, and we need them where they do the most good—posted abroad, delivering for the American people." The reaction to Trump's comments on social media was withering, with many suggesting he simply didn't understand how the U.S. Foreign Service is structured and others shocked by his gesture to Putin. Nicholas Burns, who served as undersecretary of state for political affairs during the second Bush administration, called Trump's statement "shameful." "He justifies mistreatment of U.S. diplomats by Putin," Burns wrote on Twitter. Ever since Trump won the election, the State Department has felt sidelined by the president and his aides. Trump largely ignored U.S. diplomats who were ready and willing to offer him briefings when he talked to foreign leaders during the transition period. Since taking office, Trump has proposed cutting the State Department's budget by a third, and his secretary of state, Rex Tillerson, is considered isolated and aloof from many of the diplomats he oversees.
tumbleweed the wanderer	Fri Aug 11 09:34:04 he doesn't want to break his suspiciously strange perfect record of never having a bad word for Russia and he said it in the same tone as every other answer, no indication of humor as people will claim... i think he's just deranged
Average Ameriacn Member	Fri Aug 11 10:29:05 Small government right here right now!
Forwyn Member	Fri Aug 11 10:31:29 Laughing at all of the indignant, outraged State Dept rubes. REEEEEE he's ignoring our expertise!
Hot Rod Revved Up	Fri Aug 11 11:17:12 "But many, if not most, of the positions cut will likely be those of locally hired Russian staffers." That will indeed save us money while not helping the Russian economy.
tumbleweed the wanderer	Fri Aug 11 12:56:22 yes, it's better Putin decides our staffing levels... #MAGA
tumbleweed the wanderer	Fri Aug 11 13:06:01 at that presser, he also once again smeared our intelligence agencies bringing up Iraq WMDs again as reason not to trust them total traitor to the country
Forwyn Member	Fri Aug 11 13:37:49 "Our intel agencies are totally infalliable" - tw, when on his Trump binges
tumbleweed the wanderer	Fri Aug 11 15:40:13 the President should not be saying the intel agencies can't be trusted, for hopefully obvious reasons ...also its only for his childish stupid reason of not wanting the idea of Russia interference to taint his 'win'
Rugian Member	Fri Aug 11 15:49:15 August 11, 2017 - 09:51 AM EDT Former Mueller deputy on Trump: 'Government is going to kill this guy' BY JOE CONCHA CNN counterterrorism analyst Phil Mudd warned that President Trump is agitating the government, saying during a Thursday afternoon interview with CNN anchor Jake Tapper that the U.S. government "is going to kill this guy." Mudd, who served as deputy director to former FBI Director Robert Mueller, said Trump's defense of Russian President Vladimir Putin has compelled federal employees "at Langley, Foggy Bottom, CIA and State" to try to take Trump down. "Let me give you one bottom line as a former government official. Government is going to kill this guy," Mudd, a staunch critic of Trump, said on "The Lead." "He defends Vladimir Putin. There are State Department and CIA officers coming home, and at Langley and Foggy Bottom, CIA and State, they're saying, 'This is how you defend us?' " he continued. http://www...s-going-to-kill-this-guy%3famp Trump is literary risking his life by standing up to the Deep State asshole who have hijacked control of our government. You couldn't ask for a bigger patriot in office than the one we have right now. God bless our great GEOTUS.
werewolf dictator Member	Fri Aug 11 15:53:09 comey and mueller messed up anthrax investigations.. cia hacks congress's computers and lies about it.. nsa spies on americans and clapper lies about it.. god knows how many innocent people fbi has framed with systematically fraudulent lab reports.. intelligence community lies usa into war with iraq killing hundreds of thousands and wasting trillions of dollars.. intelligence are unable to see collapse of soviet union or 911 or rise of isis or any other major event.. and then there is history of mkultra northwoods etc.. but any one who questions their competence or integrity is a total traitor to the country
Rugian Member	Fri Aug 11 16:26:19 ^In all seriousness, for as much shit as wd gets on here, these are points that cannot be ignored.
obaminated Member	Fri Aug 11 17:06:41 These deep state bastards.
tumbleweed the wanderer	Fri Aug 11 17:19:01 for the record, Phil Mudd clarified he didn't mean literally within minutes of those comments :p
Renzo Marquez Member	Fri Aug 11 17:25:45 tumbleweed the wanderer Fri Aug 11 13:06:01 "total traitor to the country" Spooks who arm and train jihadists are traitors to the county. Military personnel who participate in needless wars to depose relatively secular leaders in majority Muslim countries are traitors. People who support these bipartisan consensus policies are traitors.
tumbleweed the wanderer	Fri Aug 11 17:44:12 these arguments are garbage as Trump isn't calling for all intel agencies to be disbanded & rebuilt he has only been saying they can't be believed on the Russia interference issue... because he personally has decided it didn't happen for no reason other than his ego defending him is ridiculous... on so many things...
obaminated Member	Fri Aug 11 18:00:42 Your irrational hatred of Trump blinds you
Renzo Marquez Member	Fri Aug 11 18:11:55 On the Russia interference issue, there is no compelling public evidence. After the intelligence agencies have consistently lied to you and backed anti-American groups abroad, why do you assume they are competent and telling the truth now?
tumbleweed the wanderer	Fri Aug 11 19:07:44 do you honestly believe they didn't? they have means, motive & opportunity... & a history of it... & a reputation for it... they did it
Renzo Marquez Member	Fri Aug 11 19:23:42 No evidence. Did Saddam have ongoing WMD programs? He had the means, motive & opportunity... & a history of it... & a reputation for it...
tumbleweed the wanderer	Fri Aug 11 20:49:53 are you saying all the election system hacks didn't happen too? it was at least 21 states.. over 100 incidents and it's quite the conspiracy between so many agencies, with not one whistle blower coming out and supporting Trumps made-up position... whereas we -did- hear there was opposing intel on WMDs
CrownRoyal Member	Fri Aug 11 20:58:24 "No evidence. Did Saddam have ongoing WMD programs? " That was not on intelligence, in case people forgot. There was intelligence shown to GWB admin on every claim they made, aluminum tubes, yelllowcake, mobile labs, Saddam-AQ collaboration, on each on there there was intelligence indicating that the claims were baseless or outright false. Rumsfeld and Cheney, and their boss just picked the intelligence they liked, presented it to the public and disregarded the opposing intelligence. There is an official Senate report on it ( phase II)
Hot Rod Revved Up	Fri Aug 11 21:10:07 And Tenet said it was a 'Slam Dunk'.
CrownRoyal Member	Fri Aug 11 21:16:29 Pretty much all the "intel" came from Rummy/Feith alternative intelligence DoD office, that Gates disbanded immediately, not from the professionals --- This was a bi-partisan majority report (10-5) and "details inappropriate, sensitive intelligence activities conducted by the DoD’s Office of the Undersecretary of Defense for Policy, without the knowledge of the Intelligence Community or the State Department." It concludes that the US Administration "repeatedly presented intelligence as fact when in reality it was unsubstantiated, contradicted, or even non-existent. As a result, the American people were led to believe that the threat from Iraq was much greater than actually existed.” These included President Bush's statements of a partnership between Iraq and Al Qa'ida, that Saddam Hussein was preparing to give weapons of mass destruction to terrorist groups, and Iraq's capability to produce chemical weapons. Cont http://en....se_two.22_of_the_investigation
Renzo Marquez Member	Sat Aug 12 07:45:56 CrownRoyal Member Fri Aug 11 20:58:24 "That was not on intelligence, in case people forgot. There was intelligence shown to GWB admin on every claim they made, aluminum tubes, yelllowcake, mobile labs, Saddam-AQ collaboration, on each on there there was intelligence indicating that the claims were baseless or outright false. Rumsfeld and Cheney, and their boss just picked the intelligence they liked, presented it to the public and disregarded the opposing intelligence. There is an official Senate report on it ( phase II)" There's no doubt that the Bush admin overstated the case. The intelligence agencies did present a lot of qualifiers that were completely misrepresented or left out by admin officials. However, the intelligence agencies did report that Iraq had WMDs and ongoing programs. A couple years ago, the National Intelligence Estimate from October 2002 was redacted, declassified, and released. You can find it here: http://www...-version#fullscreen&from_embed The "Key Judgments" section begins on page 9/96 at this link and provides a summary of the findings. Here are just a few highlights: -We judge that Iraq has continued its weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programs in defiance of UN resolutions and restrictions. Baghdad has chemical and biological weapons as well as missiles with ranges in excess of UN restrictions; if left unchecked, it probably will have a nuclear weapon during this decade. (See INR alternative view at the end of these Key Judgments.) -We judge that we are seeing only a portion of Iraq's WMD efforts, owing to Baghdad's vigorous denial and deception efforts. -Since inspections ended in 1998, Iraq has maintained its chemical weapons effort, energized its missile program, and invested more heavily in biological weapons; in the view of most agencies, Baghdad is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. -We assess that Baghdad has begun renewed production of mustard, sarin, GD (cyclosarin), and VX... -We judge that all key aspects - R&D, production, and weaponization - of Iraq's offensive BW programs are active and that most elements are larger and more advanced that they were before the Gulf war. On page 13/96, the Confidence Levels for these judgments are provided. Generally, the intelligence community had a high level of confidence in the above judgments with the exception of some of the nuclear stuff because the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) dissented. Two things happened here: (1) the Bush admin completely oversold the case for the Iraq war and exaggerated the intelligence; and (2) the intelligence agencies were wrong. Most media reports focus exclusively on (1). (2) becomes crystal clear upon review of the underlying source documents. Intelligence agency fuckups on Iraqi WMDs and numerous other failures, illegal activities, blatant lies by agency heads (sometimes even while under oath before Congress), etc. are reasons why we should not take anything said by the intelligence community at face value in the absence of the actual evidence.
CrownRoyal Member	Sat Aug 12 08:14:34 "Two things happened here: (1) the Bush admin completely oversold the case for the Iraq war and exaggerated the intelligence; and (2) the intelligence agencies were wrong. " nobody is saying that intel agencies were perfect. There was wrong intel and there was right intel, it was the job of administration to pick the one they wanted to use, as usual. Same as today. On Iraq, in the immediate runup to the invasion, actual intelligence that was not from the Feith outfit, was more accurate than not. So, when people blame US intelligence services for Iraq, without even mentioning GWB and boys, that is misleading
Renzo Marquez Member	Sat Aug 12 08:28:22 When people blame Iraq intelligence failures on Bush without blaming the intelligence agencies, that is misleading. The intelligence agencies were consistently wrong about Iraq and numerous other things. They've continuously done illegal shit that has made us less safe. Their agency heads have repeatedly lied, sometimes even under oath to Congress without any consequences. There is no reason to trust anything the intelligence community says in the absence of the actual evidence.
CrownRoyal Member	Sat Aug 12 08:55:26 "When people blame Iraq intelligence failures on Bush without blaming the intelligence agencies, that is misleading. The intelligence agencies were consistently wrong about Iraq " Do you want to go one by one on the Iraq claims that GWB made, see if there was a documented intel indicating otherwise? Also, this is not about you, you can be skeptical of any intel report. This is about trump who makes claims on wildly unsubstantiated reports all the time, National Enquirer, Facebook, someone's tweets. The only, only instance of Donald developing a healthy scepticism is this one
Renzo Marquez Member	Sat Aug 12 09:06:07 CrownRoyal Member Sat Aug 12 08:55:26 "Do you want to go one by one on the Iraq claims that GWB made, see if there was a documented intel indicating otherwise?" Why? I've said repeatedly that Bush overstated and exaggerated the intel on Iraq. The intelligence agencies were also wrong about most of their key findings. I'm not sure why you keep bringing up Bush... we are in agreement that he's a piece of shit. Not really relevant to the point that Trump is correct that the intelligence community also botched Iraq. "Also, this is not about you, you can be skeptical of any intel report. This is about trump who makes claims on wildly unsubstantiated reports all the time, National Enquirer, Facebook, someone's tweets. The only, only instance of Donald developing a healthy scepticism is this one" True. But he's correct that the intelligence community was incorrect and proved itself incompetent on Iraq.
CrownRoyal Member	Sat Aug 12 09:20:26 "Why? I've said repeatedly that Bush overstated and exaggerated the intel on Iraq. " They selected the intel to be made public, and specifically created their own intel, with Rumsfeld DoD office. This was not on intel community at all. "The intelligence agencies were also wrong about most of their key findings. " Which ones? That's why I asked to go one by one. You brought up the NIE, that said saddam did wmd work, do you also want to see the intel saying that claims of saddam's wmd work are unsubstantiated? Or about Curveball unreliability? Or about the aluminum tubes not being used for wmd work? About AQ claims? Intelligence cannot be 100% correct, they collect what they can. It was not intelligence job to authorize the Iraq invasion based on fake intel, it was all on administration. "But he's correct that the intelligence community was incorrect and proved itself incompetent on Iraq." No, he is not. He is being misleading if he does not mention GWB, or all the correct and competent intelligence on Iraq
Renzo Marquez Member	Sat Aug 12 09:32:26 CrownRoyal Member Sat Aug 12 09:20:26 "They selected the intel to be made public, and specifically created their own intel, with Rumsfeld DoD office. This was not on intel community at all." Okay. But the National Intelligence Estimate was on the intel community. "Which ones? That's why I asked to go one by one. You brought up the NIE, that said saddam did wmd work, do you also want to see the intel saying that claims of saddam's wmd work are unsubstantiated? Or about Curveball unreliability? Or about the aluminum tubes not being used for wmd work? About AQ claims? Intelligence cannot be 100% correct, they collect what they can. It was not intelligence job to authorize the Iraq invasion based on fake intel, it was all on administration." There were questions about a number of claims made by the Bush administration. But the Key Findings of the National Intelligence Estimate - for which the intelligence community had a high level of confidence - were also wrong. Bush lies don't absolve the intelligence agencies of fucking up. "No, he is not. He is being misleading if he does not mention GWB, or all the correct and competent intelligence on Iraq" The Key Findings were "key" and presented by the intelligence community with a high level of confidence. They were wrong. It's not misleading not to mention Bush. Trump's point is about the intelligence agencies and he is correct that they bungled Iraq severely.
CrownRoyal Member	Sat Aug 12 09:56:13 "Okay. But the National Intelligence Estimate was on the intel community. " Indeed it was. Too bad GWB administration did not convey what it said "An example of that: According to the newly declassified NIE, the intelligence community concluded that Iraq "probably has renovated a [vaccine] production plant" to manufacture biological weapons "but we are unable to determine whether [biological weapons] agent research has resumed." The NIE also said Hussein did not have "sufficient material" to manufacture any nuclear weapons and "the information we have on Iraqi nuclear personnel does not appear consistent with a coherent effort to reconstitute a nuclear weapons program." But in an October 7, 2002 speech in Cincinnati, Ohio, then-President George W. Bush simply said Iraq, "possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons" and "the evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program." Cont http://new...ly-justified-the-iraq-invasion
CrownRoyal Member	Sat Aug 12 09:57:07 "One of the most significant parts of the NIE revealed for the first time is the section pertaining to Iraq's alleged links to al Qaeda. In September 2002, then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld claimed the US had "bulletproof" evidence linking Hussein's regime to the terrorist group. "We do have solid evidence of the presence in Iraq of al Qaeda members, including some that have been in Baghdad," Rumsfeld said. "We have what we consider to be very reliable reporting of senior-level contacts going back a decade, and of possible chemical- and biological-agent training." But the NIE said its information about a working relationship between al Qaeda and Iraq was based on "sources of varying reliability" — like Iraqi defectors — and it was not at all clear that Hussein had even been aware of a relationship, if in fact there were one."
Renzo Marquez Member	Sat Aug 12 10:22:08 "CrownRoyal Member Sat Aug 12 09:56:13 "Indeed it was. Too bad GWB administration did not convey what it said" LOL. The Key Findings from the intelligence community were wrong. They fucked up badly. If Congress read anything from the NIE before voting to authorize use of military force in Iraq, it would be a Key Findings which the intelligence community was dead wrong about. Read the NIE instead of commentary from Vice.
Renzo Marquez Member	Sat Aug 12 10:23:14 Also, since we aren't allowed to see any of the alleged evidence of Russian hacking, we don't know the extent to which there are any dissenting views within the intelligence community. If you want to go beyond key findings.
CrownRoyal Member	Sat Aug 12 10:43:04 "The Key Findings from the intelligence community were wrong. They fucked up badly. " Post the wrong ones, I want to read in full, and compare to GWB admin presentation.
Renzo Marquez Member	Sat Aug 12 10:57:10 Read my post from Sat Aug 12 07:45:56. Follow the link in that post and go to the pages I referred to.
CrownRoyal Member	Sat Aug 12 11:07:23 "Read the NIE instead of commentary from Vice." Vice quotes it verbatim, page 45 of 96. "but we are unable to determine whether BW a ent research or production has resumed" http://www...-version#fullscreen&from_embed So, if Bush says exactly that, instead of "Iraq possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons", the effect is undoubtedly different. NIe and other intel is just that, intel. Going to war is what matters. If Bush just presented all intel they had, instead of the fake one from Rumsfeld and cherry-picked NIE then you'd have a point. Otherwise, you can just as easily picture Donald quoting the intel that cast doubt on Saddam wmd, and saying, "You see, our intelligence service were right!"
Renzo Marquez Member	Sat Aug 12 11:18:06 Relying on the "Key Findings" is not cherry-picking. I believe Congress also had access to your quoted section. Yes, there was uncertainty expressed by parts of the intelligence community. Yes, the Bush administration exaggerated the evidence. But the intelligence community had a high level of confidence in its "Key Findings" and was dead wrong.
CrownRoyal Member	Sat Aug 12 11:21:14 The AQ quote is on page 72 of 96, "We cannot determine", "sources of varying reliability" instead Rumsfeld says, "We have what we consider to be very reliable reporting of senior-level contacts going back a decade, and of possible chemical- and biological-agent training."
Renzo Marquez Member	Sat Aug 12 11:23:06 Yes, Rumsfeld lied. How many times do I have to repeat: the Bush administration misrepresented and overstated the intel. Doesn't change the fact that the intelligence community was completely wrong.
CrownRoyal Member	Sat Aug 12 11:24:11 "Yes, the Bush administration exaggerated the evidence" Invented it, in case of Feith office. "Relying on the "Key Findings" is not cherry-picking." sure it is, if you omit parts from the NIE that you don't like, and present to the public parts that you like.
CrownRoyal Member	Sat Aug 12 11:25:45 "Doesn't change the fact that the intelligence community was completely wrong." Even speaking theoretically, how can "high degree of confidence" be completely wrong? High degree of confidence allows for different outcome, no?
Renzo Marquez Member	Sat Aug 12 11:33:17 Then their high degree of confidence on alleged Russian hacking is also meaningless, no?
Renzo Marquez Member	Sat Aug 12 11:34:53 CrownRoyal Member Sat Aug 12 11:24:11 "sure it is, if you omit parts from the NIE that you don't like, and present to the public parts that you like." They're called "KEY" findings for a reason. Decision-makers have to rely on summaries. I'm sure there are tens if not thousands of pages of intelligence reports on Iraq.
CrownRoyal Member	Sat Aug 12 11:35:17 oh, it might be. But not because they were "completely wrong" on Iraq
CrownRoyal Member	Sat Aug 12 11:38:17 " Decision-makers have to rely on summaries. " right, why then not inform the public about the parts of that same summary that say things like "cannot determine", or "varying reliability"?
CrownRoyal Member	Sat Aug 12 11:41:49 The AQ parts are nowhere in High Confidence section, for example, you see mention of AQ in Low Confidence section. And yet, GWB spoke about Saddam training AQ, presumably based on NIE. So, no it is not on intelligence community
Renzo Marquez Member	Sat Aug 12 11:45:43 This is just going nowhere. We agree Bush admin was shitty. You keep bringing that up again and again because you don't want to acknowledge that the intelligence community did a shitty job.
CrownRoyal Member	Sat Aug 12 12:27:12 I bring it it up because of the context, trump is talking nonsense. -"I remember when I was sitting back listening about Iraq — weapons of mass destruction — how everybody was 100 percent sure that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Guess what? That led to one big mess. They were wrong." This is false, in fact even NIE never said that Iraq has wmds. And as for the GWB administration, they weren't just shitty, they invented some Intel themselves and they were responsible for the sale of the invasion, like when they chose to omit parts of NIE they didn't like. The invasion was on them, not on Intel and without the invasion nobody even cares about any Intel. In short, Donald is entitled to believe any intelligence reports he wants to. But when he claims that he is skeptical because of intelligence community fuckup in Iraq case, he is a)misleading because the fuckup(invasion) was on GWB interpretation of intelligence, not on intelligence. And b)he is being funny because that is the only instance when Donald decided to be skeptical
Hot Rod Revved Up	Sat Aug 12 12:30:25 "And Tenet said it was a 'Slam Dunk'."
werewolf dictator Member	Sat Aug 12 17:44:46 cia in 2003 on 2002 nie http://www...se-archive-2003/pr08112003.htm "Thus, it was not a new story in 2002 when all agencies judged in the NIE that Iraq had biological weapons—that it had some lethal and incapacitating BW agents—and was capable of quickly producing and weaponizing a variety of such agents, including anthrax. We judged that most of the key aspects of Iraq’s offensive BW program were more advanced than before the Gulf war." "And so it was not a surprising story when all agencies judged in the NIE in 2002 that Baghdad possessed chemical weapons, had begun renewed production of mustard, sarin, cyclosarin, and VX and probably had at least 100 metric tons (MT) and possibly as much as 500 MT of CW agents, much of it added in the last year." and this was most serious nie by entire intelligence community under most rigorous debate and collection.. not 3 agencies [rather than 17] of 24 handpicked analysts under bigot whose bias is that russians are genetically predisposed to oppose usa and western democracy.. doing slipshod investigation where they don't even look at phone or dnc servers
Hot Rod Revved Up	Sat Aug 12 18:38:14 "whose bias is that russians are genetically predisposed to oppose usa and western democracy..." I blame Teddy Roosevelt.
	show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message: