Compare his words and delivery to this moronic segment involving the glib, clueless Bill O'Reilly and the unhinged Ralph Peters, FoxNews's golden boy:
This is what passes for state-of-the-art media geopolitical analysis on America's premiere cable news channel.
O'Reilly (on how he'd interview Putin): "You're a guy who used to removed fingernails from people. Ok? The KBG interrogator. How's the best way to get my thumb fingernail off? What do you use? A nail file?" (1:54).O'Reilly: "You got to shake him up. Because he thinks he's the coolest cat in town." (2:06)
Peters: "He's ugly. He's ruthless. He's vicious." (2:46)
Peters: "The smallest of [the things Putin wants] is to humiliate Obama. He just doesn't like Obama. He's a racist. Period." (2:58)
O'Reilly: "He wants Assad the tyrant, butcher, brutal, chemical weapons guy to stay." (4:05)
Peters: "Putin's military sucks. The Russian military's a basket case. But, it is brutal . . . ." (4:51)
 |
It's not simply that other nations have no legitimate interests. The interests of other nations are in fact interests that are exclusively hostile to those of the U.S. The duty of other nations is to defer to U.S. interests as identified by the U.S. treason class. The exceptional, indispensable nation speaks and there will compliance.
Any foreign leader who opposes U.S. interests is ugly, ruthless, and vicious.
3 comments:
Bunny, I think some of what you link to is propaganda.
The first one with Putin is spot on. It may be be self-serving, but it is reasoned and well thought out.
We ARE getting a one-sided story from Fox and everyone else. Russia isn't blameless but we're being fed a story that lets Obama get away with a disaster that he made and a foreign policy that is as antithetical to everything we thought we believed in.
I agree that the Fox segment is propaganda. Fox is relentless in its broadcasting of the "Putin's a thug" lie. Guests Keane, Peters, and McFarland are trotted out regularly to peddle that. This segment with Peters and O'Reilly is just contemptible. Putin's presentation is free of half truths and misrepresentations.
Self serving is concept in the law of evidence I've never understood. No party ever testifies but to advance his interests. It's for the jury to evaluate demeanor and content and attempt to find the truth of the matter. It's no different in the court of public opinion.
The exchange on Fox is an embarrassment to the two men. Putin, by way of contrast, is unhysterical and factually correct.
The answer to the question Who has made the most persuasive arguments? is clear. I think that's the only question that should be asked.
The first step to failure is to underestimate your opponent. If the 'elite' do it with domestic policies why should foreign affairs be any different?
Post a Comment