Monday, July 23, 2018

THE GREAT NAMAZU INTRODUCES "ARRIAS" ON THE PRESIDENT AND THE INTELLIGENCE SERVICES AND FAKE NEWS





The Great Namazu, RETIRED DEMIGOD TURNED ANALYST / COMMENTATOR

GREETINGS AMERICAN BIPEDS! 
 I've urged you before to turn daily to the Logo (Logo is a hot link) site as an antidote to swallowing too much fake news. FAKE news comes in a variety of types; spin doctoring, deliberately timed (like the announcement that the US had indited 12 Russians, who of course will never be produced or interrogated just in time to taint the President's Russian visit) , lies, damn lies, statistics, and the most insidious , the selective half truth. 

 The latest that comes to mind is the main stream media's lament that Mr. Trump didn't follow the advice of his intelligence agencies, or had discounted their assertions about Russian meddeling in American elections. Of course to some degree Mr. Trump did discount the asertions of his intelligence chiefs and with good reason. But to hear the main stream American media tell it this is always a bad thing and never done by proper US Presidents. History disagrees. 

 Well trust the Socotra House to point out the historical facts that show the Media to be engaged again in fake news / propaganda, whatever you want to call it, except journalism. What I personally like about the Socotra House is that when it comes to historical analysis they don't hesitate to hire the ghost of a dead historical figure to provide the analysis. The Socotra analyst in this case is one "ARRIAS", who appears to be a dead ancient Greek guy. You may recall that American Admiralty Books , on my recommendation hired long dead Supreme court Justice Louis Brandeis to comment on Admiralty law. I admire organizations that hire dead guys and mythological figures. It shows a real sense of the value of a dollar since their pay demands are real low, and courage to withstand the sneers and jeers of non believers. 

 Well, the late Mr "Arrias" really did a number on the media's anti Trump assertions relative to how much attention he did or didn't pay to his Intelligence chiefs. We reprint this with permission not in the hope of resolving the present issue in the public mind; but as an illustration of how selective memory works in the fake news business. To learn more and gain perspective as the swamp is drained and the Deep State continues to attack daily the forces of light be sure to check in daily with SOCOTRA HOUSE PUBLICATIONS  

Who To Believe
            "Watching the news over the last week was like watching a Marx Brothers movie: zany, madcap, and detached from reality. After a while I was reminded of Groucho's great line: “Who ya' gonna' believe, me or your lyin' eyes?”

            It seems everyone is up in arms about the President and his seeming support of Tsar Putin over the intelligence community (IC) assessment that Russia meddled in the US election. Hmmm...

            First, meddling. I'm fairly sure the Russians did meddle. After all, they (or their alter ego the Soviet Union) have  been meddling in US elections pretty regularly since the 1920s. There was even a case of a (liberal, east coast) US Senator asking the Soviet Union to help him defeat a (conservative) sitting president running for re-election (1984).

            But what about the IC? Are we supposed to trust them? Deputy AG Rosenstein reminded one and all that intelligence is “based on evidence.” Indeed it is. And the IC always does present evidence when it makes an argument for this or that point. So, is the president supposed to trust them?

            How about a short walk down memory lane?

            Should President Truman have trusted the IC when he was told in 1950 that the Soviets were years away from detonating an atomic bomb? Turns out they had detonated one a month before the assessment was presented to Truman. 

            How about the 1949 IC assessment that the North Koreans wouldn't attack across the DMZ in 1950?

            How about IC (and nearly everyone else in Washington) being convinced that Reagan was going to be duped by Gorbachev and the Soviets? Reagan went with his own assessment, against the IC. And eliminated an entire class of nuclear weapons. Should he have listened to the IC instead?

            Bush (41) was told Saddam wasn't going to attack Kuwait. He went with the estimate.

            Bush (43) was told there was ongoing chemical and biological weapons production in Iraq. He went with the estimate. Is the media recanting its condemnation of the IC in regard to Iraq and now conclude Bush was right in agreeing with the IC estimate? The IC did, after all, present evidence, just as Mr. Rosenstein said.

            And what about Obama? Obama was told that Russia was meddling in our election process but chose to do nothing. Did he think the IC was wrong? If not, yet he chose to do nothing, well... 

            Since WWII every president has, at one time or another, been “bitten” by trusting the IC. And not in minor ways, but in ways that resulted in the nation sending forces into combat.

            Intelligence, at least good intelligence, is difficult, and any intelligence organization that is batting above perhaps .600 is probably waiting so long to avoid making mistakes that their assessments are more or less worthless. Trying to accurately assess intent, particularly at the strategic level, is exceptionally difficult; there are going to be errors.

            Further, presidents have to make decisions that take into account a wide range of issues. Sometimes what a president must do is not necessarily aligned with the intelligence assessment. And, sometimes presidents make mistakes. No one is perfect.

            Meanwhile, perhaps we should remember a few things: unemployment is down to about 4%, the workforce participation rate is climbing for the first time in nearly a decade; the GDP is growing at nearly 3%, the markets are up, the majority of Americans believe the economy is improving and more than half are positive about the future. Government regulations are being cut back, taxes have been cut, businesses are expanding, and the executive has nominated a series of judges to numerous courts who believe they are limited to what the Constitution says.

            These are real and positive steps. There's an old Roman proverb that goes: Acta verum probant – actions prove the man. President Trump may say things that upset folks from time to time, or send out texts that do the same. But his fundamental actions have been sound and productive and good for the long-term health of the nation. More so than those of several preceding presidents. 

            Maybe what we need is less talk and more action, more hard looks at what is happening, more time focused on what the executive is actually doing, and less time worrying about what people are saying. 

            Or we may well end up the butt of a vaudeville gag."

Copyright 2018 ARRIAS
Reprinted with Permission

4 comments:

  1. Utter trash.
    This is very inaccurate and not relatable in the context of President Trump taking the knee for Putin.
    This is a basic cop out with no real evidence and just some references to a nostalgic early 1900's America in hopes of instilling an "Authentic American" aesthetic to trick you into thinking this is patriotism or "woke news" when In reality its simply a cop out for Donald Trumps buffoonery. He has not made any positive change whatsoever.. Rather he has gone BACKWARDS

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Sniveling Treasonious Coward Crybaby.
      What a load of typical lefty drivil. You claim we are "inaccurate" but offer no specific examples of our alledged inacccuracy. The historical examples we cite to happened, look it up. Or perhaps you already know this but it doesn't fit your lefty narrative so you just shout insults. And again,you use the old lefty trick of the half truth. Yes we did cite some examples from the 1900s, specifically the 1940, 80s, and 90s not eactly the "early 1900s as you complain. But we also cited examples from the last Bush administration and the Obama administration which date to the early 2000s. Of course all we have so far is the early 2000s we haven;t been in this century that long. But of course nothing resembling the plain and simple truth ever occurs to the lefty on a gum flapping binge. We offered a theory, supporting evidence, specific examples in support and your only response is insults ("Utter Trash"), lies ("inaccurate") unsupported supposition ,("President Trump taking the knee for Putin") (ummm who was it recently who imposed more sanctions on Russia, sure wasn't Burnie Sanders"). You bring up the term" buffonnery". You complete mush for brains idiot, you are a true buffon. Please do not visit our site until you learn how to reason, theorize, and present logical argument. There is no requirement here that you agree with us. But if you have only insults, lies, and convoluted logic please refrain from commenting until you can do so intelligently. And at least give a name, even a made up one and stick to it so that if we feel the need again to debunk your bull we will know it is more drivil from the same source. The failure to give us any kind of handle to reply to is the main reason I address you as a coward. Other wise your writing reveals you as simply a sniveling, treasonous cry baby.

      Sincerely,

      Johnas Presbyter, Editor
      Have a Nice Day

      Delete