Rachel Maddow's Dogged Russia-Gate Narratives Will Be Part Of American History
>
Rachel: "Calling Montenegro and Montenegrins a threat is not part of American foreign policy. It's not part of conservative American foreign policy, liberal foreign policy, the Moon-Is-Made-Of-Green-Cheese American foreign policy. The president is not reading that in his briefing books no matter who is writing them. He's not hearing that from anybody in the American Congress. His advisors are not whispering in his ear about the aggressive Montenegrins and the threat of World War III. The only place on earth that has been pushing any sort of line like that-- that Montenegro is unusually aggressive and will start World War III if they're allowed to join NATO-- the only place on earth articulating that is the Kremlin under Vladimir Putin. Where did he get that from? Who planted that in his ear? Poland's going to invade Belarus? No they're not. Putin made that up. Montenegrins are unusually aggressive and they;'ll going to start World War III if they're allowed to join NATO? No they're not; Putin made that up. Where's he hearing this stuff?"
She decided to discuss the role Putin's United Russia Party-- and it's decision to rewrite some old Soviet history in Central Asia-- is playing inside Trump's sad, mushy mind-- or what Chris Hayes calls "the president's broken brain"-- with former U.S. Ambassador to Russia, Michael McFall. No collusion, folks-- maybe something far, far worse? A puppet's worse than a colluder, right? You've got to watch this:
Labels: Afghanistan, McFall, Montenegro, Rachel Maddow, Trump/Putin
14 Comments:
stopped watching Madow almost 4 years ago. Don't pay attention to her anymore.
This comment has been removed by the author.
You mean Madcow Maddow who self-identifies as almost an Eisenhower Republican"? i
You mean Maddow whose ratings-focused, content-free clowning about Russia and collusion has largely been refuted by smart left-liberals and leftists like Mark Ames, Consortium News, Counterpunch, most of AlterNet, etc?
🐔"Even a blind chicken gets a kernel of corn once in a while..." --National Sales director Nancy Dutcher
@Hone Don't we want anything done? Yes. We want to organize and win the next election. Not fan the flames of jingoism and feed conspiracy theories. Maddow is playing a ratings game plain and simple. The way to beat Trump is not tuning into MSNBC, it's organizing to win.
http://map.organizingforbernie.com
Come on, Moe, you can't be that dense. The television news is CRITICAL and tuning in is critical. Americans need to hear about what is going on. How do you think you can "organize and win" without the mainstream media spreading some of the truth? It needs to be in people's faces. Great that Rachel's ratings are going up, by the way. Good news. People are tuning in.
And...THE RUSSIA ISSUE IS NOT A CONSPIRACY THEORY even though this whole mess sounds like a really bad sci fi novel. Unfortunately, we are living in it. Trump demonstrates blatantly and regularly that he is beholden to the Russians.
How the hell does Trump even know any of this stuff to even talk about it? Do you have the slightest doubt that he has never heard of Belarus or Montenegro or that he gives a poop why Russia went into Afghanistan in the 1970's? He would be totally ignorant of all of this. His knowledge of geography is piss poor. He does not read or listen to briefings. No one in his administration would bother to bring this stuff up with him, if they even knew about it, which they probably didn't. Frightening to think, it seems likely the Russians are planting this stuff in Trump's ear and he then spouts it out. Rachel revealed it - this is a BIG DEAL. How the Russians are doing so is a good question. Do they have a communication system of sorts? A go between perhaps?
Good for Rachel for bringing this to light. We are lucky to have her. Hillary said early on that Trump would be Putin's puppet and whatever you may think of her, she was point on. More than collusion.
MSNBC is the best mainstream news channel we got and it is doing a good job. Good ratings show that more people are tuning in to what is really going on.
Exposure of Trump's widespread criminality and of his traitorous behavior against the USA on behalf of Russia must be in the news. This will eventually bring Trump down. Mueller is putting all of the ducks in a row. The truth will be frightening. The media must thrust it in everyone's face to make the slam dunk case against him and impeach the mother***er. The sooner the better.
@Hone
I have to agree with Moe in that Maddow is incredibly fixated on the Russian interference regardless of the lack of any evidence that it had any real effect on the results.
Remember that Hillary had more popular votes. The races in WI, MI, OH, and PA could have been swung had she at least made the attempt to win them, which she did not.
There were the Black voters of Milwaukee who stayed home rather than vote for HER! Many Black voters in Philadelphia apparently did as well. In Detroit, 70,000 ballots weren't counted.
While I don't watch Maddow anymore, I admit that she has admirable research skills - WHEN SHE CHOOSES TO USE THEM>. That she has not on this issue demeans any presentations she offers claiming Russian interference. It's more than evident that the other R Team is the one to blame. The one she claims to belong to, as Gadfly pointed out above.
Missing links from above:
Philadephia voters: https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/johntemplon/this-chart-shows-philadelphia-black-voters-stayed-home-costi
Detroit voters: https://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/national-party-news/311099-skeptical-70000-black-voters-abstained-from
To Hone: Thank you for your very intelligent comments about this topic. I watch Rachel but I also have an opinion on some of her views. I am really tired of some of the commenters on this blog who continuously trash women in their comments. I agree that MSNBC is not perfect, but what other choice do progressives/liberals have on the crap we see on the teevee? Some of you should get off the woman bashing comments and try to maybe provide some positive and constructive information. It gets really old to read these ignorant and negative comments.
Since when does Rachel Maddow represent all women? Does Hillary represent all women?
When I bash either one of them, I cite evidence to back my claim. To not do so -as you have done, 6:00- you only demonstrate that you are the one being ignorant and negative.
Here's my own reason why i don't like MSNBC they started out as conservative in 1996 & now they're owned by Comcast i have no interest of watching the network.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MSNBC
Hone is deranged. This is the same Hone, who is a huge Pelosi fan. No wonder he and some of the other folks love Maddow.
Hone? Her show is full of shite. Anon, thanks for pointing that out.
You want to watch something real about politics, Hone? Try Amy Goodman and Democracy Now. Put down Madcow's almost an Ike Republican (that's a clickable link up there, folks) BS.
russiagate to montenagro? fuck that. if you are looking for a NATO member to be the first to start WWIII, look at Turkey. If trump bails on Syria (negotiations ongoing, btw, with potential wipeout of the Kurds being the lynchpin for Turkey).
If trump bails and Turkey invades, it'll be a NATO member (that is not the usa) helping the Russians and their boy assad and also helping ISIS and also helping, indirectly, iran... but might also be viewed by iran as aggression.
That's what happens in that area when you don't understand (or care) wtf you are doing.
who was it that first sent boots into Syria... oh yeah. it was obamanation. But that was because cheney created isis by invading Iraq. yadda yadda yadda...
I quit watching maddow 8 years ago when she refused to even address obamanation and the democraps' obvious corruption, ineptitude and galloping fascism. She's good on issues wrt gays, women, race and a few others... but she put on her sleep mask wrt torture and pulled a bag over her head on wall street criminals.
I quit MSNBC altogether not long after. Once Olbermann was fired, there wasn't anyone left really worth watching. Hayes and O'Donnell weren't horrible but still not worth watching.
With the rise of Nixon, I kind of swore off politicians and media enablers who pathologically lie. I've tried very hard to not be a hypocrite ever since.
Someone once asked Helen Thomas, circa Watergate, when she first realized that Nixon was lying. She replied "1948" or some such.
Post a Comment
<< Home