“Israel Provided Data Trump Shared With Russia, Officials Say.” — New York Times.
Very strange that the brainwashing newspaper doesn’t have any problems with such a strange, bizarre turn of events. As if it’s normal.
“Trump Says He Had the ‘Right’ to Share Data With Russia.” — New York Times.
That’s very strange and bizarre too. At least I thought so.
So, I turned to my old friend and mentor Noam Chomsky for help. I asked him today:
“Notwithstanding Trump is taking this presidency to a new, unprecedented, lawless level, hasn’t the U.S. always shared classified information with other governments and leaders in the past: information on war, terrorism, or banking or corporate interests that helped the U.S.? Why is there such a big fuss now?”
And I got this reply from him, which I share with you.
“The government has secretly shared classified material with selected allies in the past. I know of no case where a President simply blurted it out in the course of a conversation (while boasting of what great intel he was receiving) without planning and consultation, and to a foreign power that is hardly an ally.”
So, a U.S. president, it seems to me, does not understand the seriousness of his job. Isn’t it reckless, immature, and very dangerous for mankind — to see such a man de facto could destroy the world, with one flip of the switch?
Do we want to see him in this seat of power at all?
But Chomsky also said this, and I share it with you too.
“It’s technically not lawless. The president has the right to declassify information.”
If that is the case, and U.S. presidents apparently have done it in the past many times over, why do New York Times and the pro-Democratic Party U.S. media suddenly single out Trump for such a “crime?” Just because they have to get rid of Trump, one way or the other? And then what? Destabilize the Republican Party, and put another Clinton in power?
My question is, wouldn’t it have been much wiser, had New York Times, Washington Post, and CNN not killed the candidacy of Bernie Sanders last year? It is now so obvious that a Sanders-Trump election would see the pro-99% social democrat in office today.
Instead of this out-of-control, reckless, irresponsible man in this chair?
Sincerely,
Partha Banerjee
Brooklyn, New York
###
I Asked Chomsky About Trump and Russia
Thank you for your blog. I have several thoughts that came while reading this. First, I know of one precedent for a president recklessly revealing information gleaned from intelligence, which revelation put the source at risk: Richard Nixon. I don’t remember any details, but he announced something in a news conference that put an intelligence source in Eastern Europe at risk. I think they got him out before he was arrested and killed, but the intelligence people became reluctant to tell him things.
The cynic in me, and the political realist who is aware of all the dirty tricks big money can and will play, says that even if Bernie got the nomination, it would have been an uphill battle for him to win. Targeted misinformation aimed at the computers of select demographics can go viral and be politically fatal.
But we can dream….and start now, from the bottom up. And your implication is correct: it will have to include blue collars who will soon be disenchanted with the emptiness of Trump’s promises.
Sent from my iPhone
>
Thanks for your comments, as always. Much appreciate it. The Trump void will be misappropriated by establishment Democrats and their big media, I am afraid.