The War on Free Speech: Politicians and Commentators Label War Critics “Traitors”

It is often said that “the first casualty of War is Truth.” It is a powerful but slightly inaccurate statement. The first casualty before truth is free speech. Lies only triumph when unchallenged. That is why one of the most consistent responses to war, including in the United States, has been an attack on the free speech of dissenters. This anti-free speech impulse rests like a dormant virus in the body politic and it has emerged, once again, like a fever during the Ukrainian War. From Congress to the arts, critics of the war are being labeled “traitors” and “agents of Russia.”

Many of us have denounced Vladimir Putin and Russia for this unprovoked war, including the commission of war crimes against the Ukrainian population. Yet, our disgust at what is unfolding in Ukraine should not blind us to the dangers at home from these anti-free speech campaigns. Indeed, there is a growing anti-free speech movement in the United States in favor of speech codescensorship, and blacklists. There is now a danger that many will unwittingly be pulled into this movement to silence those who question the war.

This movement began by targeting Russian artists and athletes who were told that they will be cancelled or blacklisted if they do not expressly denounce the Russian invasion of Ukraine and President Vladimir Putin.  In the Metropolitan Opera, famed Soprano Anna Netrebko announced that she would be suspending performances after the Met demanded that she publicly denounce Vladimir Putin.  Met Manager Peter Gelb publicly decried “a great artistic loss for the Met and for opera,” but stressed that the Met left little choice: Netrebko had to denounce Putin or stop singing.

According to media reports, Met officials “made several attempts to convince Netrebko, who has made statements critical of the war, to rebuke Putin but failed to persuade the singer.” Gelb bizarrely added “Anna is one of the greatest singers in Met history, but with Putin killing innocent victims in Ukraine, there was no way forward.” Liberal New Yorkers (who flock to plays lionizing defiant artists in the McCarthy period) applauded the Met’s effective blacklisting of this artist after 192 performances.

Netrebko is not alone. Tugan Sokhiev, the chief conductor at Bolshoi Theatre and the Orchestre National du Capitole de Toulouse, resigned rather than be coerced into such public statements. The Munich Philharmonic also dismissed chief conductor Valery Gergiev after he failed to condemn the invasion.

Sokhiev wrote on Facebook “during last few days I witnessed something I thought I would never see in my life. In Europe, today I am forced to make a choice and choose one of my musical family over the other.”

We have also seen such rising intolerance in politics. Former Rep. Tulsi Gabbard has long been a critic of foreign wars and a lightning rod for many of the left after she opposed Hillary Clinton. (Clinton painted her as someone being “groomed” by Russians). Her meeting with dictator Bashar al-Assad and challenging claims of mass deaths also caused many to denounce her. However, this week, Sen. Mitt Romney (R., Utah) went after Gabbard for raising concerns over U.S. supported bio labs in Ukraine.  The Biden Administration has acknowledged that bio labs exist but denounced suggestions that these were bio weapons labs, though Gabbard insists she only referred to bio labs.

Many disagree with Gabbard’s take on this and other issues. Fine. Free speech allows such issues to be hashed out to allow citizens to reach their own conclusions.

However, Romney was not satisfied with simply disagreeing with Gabbard. He declared “Tulsi Gabbard is parroting false Russian propaganda. Her treasonous lies may well cost lives.” Treason?  The claim that Gabbard (who serves in the reserves as an Army Lt. Colonel) is a traitor is a shocking statement from a U.S. Senator. It is particularly unnerving as Putin calls his critics “traitors” and calls for cleansing Russian society of dissenting voices on the war.

Others have made similar claims about Gabbard and others who question our position in Ukraine. Former Senator and MSNBC contributor Claire McCaskill declared “Tucker Carlson and others are really, really close to treason in terms of what they are saying and parroting what is Putin’s dream.”

Likewise, on The View, the hosts went after Tucker Carlson for defending Gabbard and raising his own criticism of mainstream rationales in favor of Ukraine. Alyssa Farah, a CNN contributor, declared “I think Mitt Romney is absolutely right… this is… the Russians are spreading propaganda . . . it’s helping them get away with acts against Ukrainian civilians.”

That triggered a free-for-fall against free speech. Co-host Ana Navarro called for Carlson to be cancelled because “we cannot be Russian state TV.”  She then added “I think DOJ, in the same way that it is setting up a task force to investigate Russian oligarchs, should look into people who are Russian propagandists and shilling for Putin. If you are a foreign asset to a dictator, it should be investigated.”

Moderator Whoopi Goldberg seemed to love the idea of arresting people with dissenting views on war: “They used to arrest people for doing stuff like this,. If they thought you were colluding with a Russian agent or putting out information or taking information and handing it over to Russia, they used to investigate stuff like this.”

It is certainly true that we did “arrest people for doing stuff like this.” They were liberals, socialists, pacifists, and others who spoke out against wars. Indeed, this month, we passed the anniversary of the infamous ruling in Debs v. United States upholding the conviction of Eugene Debs, a socialist who ran for President. He was convicted under the Espionage Act of 1917 for opposing World War I.

Then there were the hundreds of actors and writers blacklisted or prosecuted during the Red Scare and the McCarthy period. They included figures like the great singer Paul Robeson found themselves barred from performances due to their refusal to condemn others or Russia.

Now it is the left that is calling for blacklists and arrests over dissenting viewpoints. Indeed, they are calling for arrests on the very same basis of being aligned or supportive of Russia.

Other countries have also cracked down on free speech in the name of fighting tyranny. If you praise Putin in the Czech Republic, you will be thrown into jail as an enemy of freedom.  Yet, such hypocrisy pales in comparison to artists calling for other artists to be fired or declared traitors.

Figures like Whoopi Goldberg are not the only ones apparently longing for the good old days for summary arrests. As the hosts on The View were listing enemies of the state, their counterparts on Russia-1, a state-owned Russian television channel, were talking about how in the old days they could hang dissenters and how such public hangings should be brought back for Ukraine.

It is not surprising that McCarthyism could come back in vogue. What is surprising is that it is the rage on the left. The victims of the Red Scare are now leading the mob to root out the Russian sympathizers and traitors among us. Blacklisting and censorship (both public and corporate) are now considered righteous acts. It is all in the name of defending freedom by preventing its exercise.

162 thoughts on “The War on Free Speech: Politicians and Commentators Label War Critics “Traitors””

  1. I am far more of a hawk then even the most ardent Ukraine supporters. Many would most likely label me as an outright warmonger. I’d like to see Putin on the gallows, Russia’s industrial and military capacity reduced to rubble and glass, and the Russian nation partitioned into several small demilitarized ineffective states.

    That being said I support tose ideas because I believe we are the better people, that our principals of free speech and open inquiry and debate should be upheld and spread as far and wide as possible.

    We need to hear voices of opposition. I encourage open debate and criticism. No healthy free nation should try to enforce a single hive mind viewpoint.

  2. So much vitriol, so little debate. None of you ever change anybody else’s mind so why do you spend so much time commenting? The comments section here is just a sinkhole of negativity.

  3. Just out of curiosity, does anyone here really think that giving the Ukrainians Soviet era jets that entered service in 1982 will really beat modern Russian air forces and air defenses?

      1. Yeah, sure. Didn’t you recently post such stuff on another article on this website? With your track record for accuracy and reliability, you have to be right. And Paul Schulte isn’t Paul Schulte; Anonymous [the rational one] isn’t Anonymous; and Olly isn’t Olly. I suppose that in a Universe as large as ours, there could be a set of circumstances in the space-time continuum where that might be true. But let’s not speculate.

  4. Young, et al,

    On topic for those that like to see the blue prints, outlines of the bigger picture. Of what we can see anyway.

    You mentioned a piece days ago: Duck Duck Go turns evil against “We the People” by blocking data to us

    Mute the volume out the gate til you can adjust on these videos, & you can click to skip ads.

    ( Ran into this banking crap below this week.)

    15:43 minutes ( Those censored here by WP?) Bankers have been herding us all like cattle for decades & even if people can’t/will not admit it those aholes are closing the gates on them/us all now with likely now way out. There’s another few important 5 minute videos that should be seen.)

    Global Central Bank Head Announces Social Credit Score System


    Mar 9, 2022
    The Alex Jones Show
    The Alex Jones Show

    Alex Jones breaks down the Mark of the Beast future ahead as big banks announce digital currency control systems worldwide.


    The Great Reset Remix


    Feb 23, 2022
    Most Banned Videos
    Most Banned Videos

    A listener sent us this amazing clip that is being pulled from all globalists social media sites produced by eastern.freedom.
    Visit InfowarsStore


    more coming.

    1. Cont:

      Check you volume:

      7:12 total minutes:

      Yuval Noah Harari | “How Can We Get Global Agreement On AI (w/ Putin in Ukraine)?”



      Mar 14, 2022
      Thrivetime Show
      Thrivetime Show

      6:50 total minutes:



      Mar 18, 2022
      Greg Reese
      Greg Reese

      NATO’s obsession with biological warfare


      1. Cont..


        39:12 minutes

        Reporter In Ukraine Confirms Ukrainians Are Bombing Civilians And Media Is Blaming Russia



        Mar 15, 2022
        War Room With Owen Shroyer
        War Room With Owen Shroyer

        Patrick Lancaster joins Sean Stone and Owen Shroyer to break the news about what’s really happening on the ground in Ukraine and how the MSM continues to lie about Ukraine in order to push for war with Russia.

  5. Russia’s Foreign Minister Praises Fox News Coverage Of War

    And Denounces Twitter For Banning Trump!

    Russia’s foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov, has praised Fox News for its coverage, appearing on the Russian state-controlled RT network to hail the right-leaning US cable channel, whose primetime host Tucker Carlson has played down the invasion.

    “We know the manners and the tricks that are being used by the western countries to manipulate media, we understood long ago that there is no such thing as an independent western media,” said Lavrov, speaking in English in a studio interview on Friday.

    “If you take the United States, only Fox News is trying to present some alternative point of view,” he said.

    He also denounced the social media ban of former president Donald Trump and took exception to the description of January 6 rioters as terrorists.

    “But when you watch other channels, read the social networks and internet platforms, when the acting president was blocked and this censorship continues in a very big way … Whenever something is happening by the way of mass protest, mass demonstrations – which they don’t like – they immediately call it domestic terrorism.

    Russian media regularly play clips of Carlson criticising the US and Ukraine, and he was still praising President Vladimir Putin hours before Russia invaded Ukraine almost four weeks ago.

    In contrast, as Moscow’s bombardment escalated, Russian apologism by numerous Fox hosts, commentators and guests was being corrected on air by the network’s own national security correspondent, Jennifer Griffin.

    The mental split-screen effect only sharpened earlier this week when a Fox news team on the ground in Ukraine came under Russian fire on the frontline.

    Cameraman Pierre Zakrzewski and producer Oleksandra Kuvshynova were both killed during a Russian attack outside the Ukrainian capital, Kyiv. Correspondent Benjamin Hall was badly wounded in the incident.

    Edited From:

  6. This conflict is causing people to show their true colors, and lack of intelligence. Millions of Americans are being influenced by Ukrainian propaganda. Remember when Russian troops first moved ino Ukraine, Zelensky said they were out to “kill” him. That was nearly a month ago and he’s still spouting off. People who claim to have an open mind have suddenly become steel-traps (including Tobin.) Look folks, the world has no clue what is happening in Ukraine because we’re being fed propaganda. By the way, the United States it not officially at war with Russia (or anybody else) so “treason” does not apply. On the other hand, I strongly suspect that the Biden administration has CIA operatives and probably sheep-dipped military personnel on the ground in Ukraine. They’re there to coordinate the movement of supplies if nothing else. The US government has been waging shadow wars since 1945 as well as over wars. Americans seem to have forgotten (or never knew) that Bill Clinton waged war in Serbia and Kosovo using NATO as his proxy. Then Obama and Bill’s corrupt wife waged war in Libya and Syria. We must not forget the Bush’s wars in Kuwait and Iraq and the junior Bush’s war in Afghanistan that lasted for more than twenty years – and ended without accomplishing a damn thing. I am a decorated disabled veteran and as far as I’m concerned, any military action that is not directly defending US soil is unwarranted.

    1. semcgowanjr

      Is one of endless puppets fielded by The Blog Stooge. This puppet goes back 2 years. We’ve been tracking that long.

      Other puppets include: James, Thinkthrough, El Cid, Ralph, Feldman, Margot Ballhere, Mistress Addams, N.N. and more recently Paul Schulte (who used to be a genuine commenter).

      Be on the alert for anyone responding to this post. The Blog Stooge himself is almost always the one who answers. Lately he keeps pretending to be a ‘friendly’ liberal attempting to ‘correct’ us; denying the puppets are puppets. Though more frequently The Blog Stooge responds with gay-themed garbage. Because that is where he’s at!

      The Blog Stooge seeks to make this forum his personal echo chamber. And sadly he has succeeded so long that many of his puppets seem like ‘old familiar names’ to newer readers. That was the stooge’s goal when he first embarked on this charade.

      1. “Lately he keeps pretending to be a ‘friendly’ liberal attempting to ‘correct’ us”

        “us”? Is there more than one of you?

        I’m definitely liberal (you can ask Svelaz and Jeff if you don’t want to take my word). I don’t care whether or not you consider me friendly, but I’m pretty sure that you’re the person who used to post as Seth Warner and who still has to deal with all sorts of disgusting homophobic harassment. When I first started commenting here, I emailed Turley about the harassment directed at you. I hadn’t yet learned that he doesn’t care and doesn’t actually run the site according to his Civility Rule.

        I’m one of the liberal commenters that S. Meyer refers to as ATS. Meyer assumes that a single person is posting comments that actually come from several different people. He’s wrong about that, and I think you know he’s wrong about that. I think you’re just as wrong in your assumptions, but apparently since I disagree with you, you want to pretend that I’m yet another sock of the person you refer to at “the blog stooge.”

        I can’t prove to you that I’m friendly, but here are examples that should show you that I’m liberal:

        This is me, debating the idiot Meyer about vaccine claims: (this thread also shows that Meyer confuses liberals even when they’re posting under different names)

        This is me, giving Jeff Silberman a heads up about news that I thought might interest him and then debating iowan2:

        Do you need more examples?

        1. Anonymous, you’re The Blog Stooge. Nobody but the Stooge would keep intervening and trying to convince us they’re a friendly ‘liberal’. None of the liberals on this blog would make any effort on the stooge’s behalf. And this crap you keep referring to with regards to Alan is just a stupid distraction.

          1. I’m not making an “effort on the stooge’s behalf.” I’m making an effort on *your* behalf, because you look as obsessed and foolish as Allan, and unlike Allan, who is a vile liar and troll, I don’t think you’re a vile liar and troll. I simply think that you’ve been attacked by so many people here (Olly, This is Absurd, Estovir, …) that you’ve become a bit paranoid in response. I’d previously called a number of people out for attacking you — Estovir, for example, who claims to be Catholic but clearly doesn’t abide by “love thy neighbor as thyself.”

            I’m liberal whether or not you believe it, and I’m certainly not the person you call “the blog stooge” or any of that person’s actual socks, or any of the people you mistakenly think are socks for that person. If you can’t accept that you’re making as big a fool out of yourself as Allan does, OK.

            1. REGARDING ABOVE:

              The Stooge Never heard that quote, “I think he protests too much”.

              So like a clueless twit, the stooge persists with this farce that he’s really a ‘friendly liberal’ offering advice.

              But when you make-up insultingly stupid names like ‘Margot Ballhere’, your grasp of reality is tenuous at best.

              You know it’s The Stooge because his creepiness always comes out.

              1. The quote is “The lady doth protest too much, methinks.” It’s a line from Shakespeare’s play Hamlet. I think it’s funny that you just responded to me in the same way that Allan did here: I’d previously thought that you two were only alike in your ridiculous overgenerizations about commenters, but now you’ve presented me with another similarity: both of you have difficulty when someone counters your false claims.

                I’ve never posted under the name “Margot Ballhere.” But since you’re only digging in on your mistaken beliefs, I guess my response from now on will be to ignore you entirely. Ciao.

    2. “[A]ny military action that is not directly defending US soil is unwarranted.”

      Hear, hear!

      There is only one purpose of the U.S. military: To defend Americans from foreign criminals.

      Our military’s purpose is *not* nation building, protecting a foreign country’s borders or culture, ridding the world of rats, being a meals-on-wheels, or making the “world safe for democracy.”

    3. Semcgowanjr, you forgot about Trumps war. Oh that’s right, there wasn’t any.

  7. Further indications that our society is being whipped into some bizarre form of mass insanity.

    A prominent Oregon children’s hospital teaches young boys to tuck their genitals out of sight.

    I understand that with any population there will be a percentage of individuals who are basically nuts. I don’t understand why our society is putting them in charge/

    1. Perhaps the 50 US Senators should be castrated too?

      A Republican Senate MUST hold hearings with all 50 of the people who signed that letter 3 weeks before the 2020 campaign. They all said Hunter Biden’s laptop was Russian disinformation. And they didn’t have a single piece of intel to suggest it.

  8. Biden lied. The MSM lied. The Democrats lied. Trump would have won the election if censorship had not occurred by Big Tech.

    1. It’s hardly saying anything to say that Biden and the MSM lied. The far more onerous task, if it can even be done at all, is identifying when they have actually told the truth.

  9. I read recently that a group of like-minded individuals bought an Island and have begun the process of creating their own country. None of the individuals are the super wealthy, not by a long shot.
    At some point Americans who love freedom and liberty will take a stand and fight the tyranny running rampant inside the Beltway, and ever more increasingly, outside the Beltway.
    At the rate we’re going, 75 million Trump voters will be chasing down the 80 million Biden voters and it will get ugly, very ugly.
    A good place to start would be to get the names and contact information of those 50 ‘intelligence professionals’ who spoke out against the Hunter Biden laptop, in October of 2020.
    Some would say (not me included) that a public hanging would have an immediate impact on those who knowingly hide the truth for a living.

    Well, enough of this extreme talk, for now. Stay tuned.

  10. “Gabbard insists she only referred to bio labs.” I have watched the video that set Mittens off and “bio labs” is exactly what she says. She says it several times. She also observed how dangerous bio labs are in a war zone. They are easily damaged and the pathogens released. She urged the destruction of the pathogens. That is treasonous? WTF? Everything she said was sensible and rational. Nowhere did she speak approvingly of Putin or Russia. I encourage you to watch the clip and verify it for yourself. Accusing her of treasonous behavior is idiocy and perhaps itself seditious.

    We were ready to start WW3 over Soviets and missiles on our doorstep in 1962. There is no reason for Russia to be any more accepting of our troops and missiles on their doorstep 60 years later.

    After the fall of the Soviet Union old man Bush agreed that Russia needed a buffer on its border and promised Gorbachev that NATO would not advance into eastern Europe. Clinton then admitted former Warsaw Pact nations into NATO. Duhbya followed up with more. Duhbya also withdrew from arms control agreements with Russia. We have installed missiles in eastern Europe, in Poland and Romania, and we have been militarizing the Ukraine after overthrowing its elected government in 2014. We have created the crisis we now have in Ukraine, yet everyone is screaming RUSSIA RUSSIA RUSSIA.

    We could have avoided this war by taking the off ramp the Russians repeatedly requested. We could have done that by declaring that the Ukraine would not become a member of NATO, backing NATO troops away from Russia’s border, and negotiating safety procedures around our missiles in eastern Europe. We have refused to do any of those things.

    The Russians are no gems. I do not admire Putin. Opposing the warmongering neocon idiocy that is US foreign policy does not mean I support the other side. It is clear that our neocon elites have gotten exactly what they wanted by using the Ukrainians as bear bait and by refusing the Russians the terms that we were ready to go to nuclear war to enforce in 1962. Have we had enough fun yet? Are the moronic lemmings still dancing to the jingoistic tune of our propaganda and demanding to rush off the cliff? Do we need mushroom clouds to get our attention? If so the Russians might provide them, just as we were prepared to do in 1962.

    If this be treason make the most of it. Virginia’s Patrick Henry had it right then, and it is still right now.

    1. Accusing someone of treason is not “itself seditious,” and if you believe that it is, then you’d have to conclude that lots of people have engaged in sedition, since lots of people (Trump, for example) have accused others of treasonous behavior.

      Re: “We were ready to start WW3 over Soviets and missiles on our doorstep in 1962. There is no reason for Russia to be any more accepting of our troops and missiles on their doorstep 60 years later,” we do not have troops and missiles in Ukraine, and THAT is the country that Russia started a war with, so your attempted analogy falls apart.

      1. Hey, anonymous moronic dickhead, if Ukraine became a NATO member, which was touted very recently by another moron, Kamala Harris, we COULD put missiles in Ukraine, just like we did in Poland. Ergo invasion. So you attempted takedown of the analogy completely falls apart.

        1. SMH that you think childish name-calling serves you.

          You’re focused on a hypothetical. Ukraine isn’t a NATO member, and Kamala Harris has no control over whether Ukraine becomes a NATO member.

          Work on your logical reasoning. Understand the difference between the facts that Russia already invaded Ukraine despite our not having troops and missiles in Ukraine, and your hypothetical involving the possibility of Ukraine becoming a NATO member at some unknown future time.

          The analogy fell apart because the facts do not support it.

          1. “we do not have troops and missiles in Ukraine, and THAT is the country that Russia started a war with, so your attempted analogy falls apart.”

            The point is that we are trying to get Ukraine into NATO. Once they are in NATO then the troops and weapons are an inevitability. This would place a hostile military alliance in Russia´s belly. To act like this is no big deal is clearly disingenuous. The analogy to the Cuba missile crisis is apt because we would never tolerate such a move by a hostile military alliance into our belly. So it is you who needs to work on your logical reasoning. However, I have no doubt that you are deliberately being obtuse…so what you really need to do is work on your soul. Your nature, like many of your ilk, is to dissemble. You are the cancer in our world.

            1. The analogy to the Cuba missile crisis is apt because we would never tolerate such a move by a hostile military alliance into our belly

              The United States is not a hostile military. The US has never taken over territory by military invasion.

                1. “how do you think we go the Philippines?”

                  That territory was ceded to the U.S. by Spain, *after* Spain had declared war on the U.S., and *after* it then lost that war.

                    1. “how do think Adm. Dewey ended up at the Philippines?”

                      He arrived there *after* Spain declared war on the U.S. Apparently, you also do not know that the Philippines were then a Spanish colony.

                      You keep getting the history wrong, and thus are wrong about who the aggressor was.

                    2. Sam – you evidently did not know the US declared war on Spain before Spain declared war on the US. And I did know the Philippines was a Spanish colony, which is why Dewey headed straight to Manila.

                2. We don’t occupy and run Philippines. We would leave if requested…Taking $billiions spending, and a huge civillian payroll with it.

                  1. “[T]he US declared war on Spain before Spain declared war on the US.”

                    That is false.

                    Spain declared war on April 23, 1898. The U.S. followed with its declaration of war on 25 April 1898.

                    1. Sam – aha, but they made it retroactive to the 21st, three days before the Spanish declared war.

                    2. “. . . they made it retroactive to the 21st . . .”

                      So Spain knew on the 23rd, when it declared war on the U.S., that America would, on the 25th, make its war declaration retroactive to the 21st?!

                      You need to stop swallowing whole the Howard Zinn propaganda that masquerades as American “history.”

                    3. Sam – don’t ever put words in my mouth. I am telling you the actually history. Not some feel good story.

                    4. “I am telling you the actually history.”

                      Your “history” about which country first declared war, requires Spain to have had a crystal ball. That’s not “history.” That’s fantasy. And it’s a vicious fantasy, intended to smear America (ala Zinn and his ilk).

                    5. Sam – I am not responsible for Congress!!! The date they selected to declare war was the 21st.

              1. Iowan2 @9:58

                “The United States is not a hostile military. The US has never taken over territory by military invasion.” Ha ha ha ha, corny humor.

                In addition to the places others have mentioned, how about places like Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria? Do those not count as “territory”? You may have noticed, or maybe you did not, that last year we gave up our “territory” in Afghanistan after 20 years of occupation. We still occupy “territory” in Iraq and Syria. Those are “wars of aggression” and are war crimes, although that news may not have reached Iowa yet, it has only been 20 years.

      2. Anon @ 5:33, I never said we had troops or missiles or troops in Ukraine. I said we have missiles in Poland and Romania. Learn to read. We have both NATO and US troops on Russia’s border in in Latvia, Estonia, and Lithuania. We also have troops in Poland and Romania.

        So sorry to disabuse you of your attempt to create a straw man to knock down.

        1. I read just fine. I quoted the part that I was referring to: “We were ready to start WW3 over Soviets and missiles on our doorstep in 1962. There is no reason for Russia to be any more accepting of our troops and missiles on their doorstep 60 years later.”

          First, let’s be clear: in the Cuban Missile Crisis, Russia placed nuclear missiles in Cuba. The US has nuclear missiles in Belgium, Germany, the Netherlands, Italy and Turkey.. We do not have nuclear missiles in any countries that border on Russia, though clearly missiles elsewhere in Europe can reach Russia. The thing is: Russia did not threaten the countries where there are US troops and nuclear missiles. It started a war with Ukraine, where there are no US troops or nuclear missiles. If Russia were actually doing something analogous to the Cuban missile crisis, it would address the countries where there are actual US troops and nuclear missiles. But instead it invaded Ukraine. The situation simply isn’t analogous, and it’s not a straw man to point that out.

          1. anon @ 6:59
            The situation is absolutely analogous. We would not tolerate hostile forces on our doorstep. We have put hostile forces, and NATO member countries on Russia’s doorstep. Those are Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania directly on Russia’s border. We were threatening to admit the Ukraine to NATO, we have been militarizing Ukraine and holding joint military exercises. The Russians have no more reason to tolerate that than we did in Cuba.

            Once again you are mistaken. The nuclear weapons you note we currently have in Europe and Turkey, none of which are in eastern Europe, are not missiles as you claim. They are tactical low yield bombs. They are not toys, but they are not nuclear missiles and there are around 60 of them in total.

            The issue with our actual missiles in Poland and Romania is that the missile systems are AEGIS Ashore. Those control and fire offensive nuclear missiles out of the same tubes that hold the defensive missiles we say we have deployed to defend against Iran (pull the other one, it’s got bells on). Travel time to Moscow is minutes from eastern Europe. The Russians cannot know what we have deployed in those systems, and we have declined to negotiate verification procedures.

            Russia has no more reason to tolerate that than we did missiles in Cuba. Part of the resolution of the Cuban Missile Crisis was that we removed actual nuclear missiles from NATO member Turkey as the Soviets removed theirs from Cuba.

            The things you claim are just not so. They are no more valid than the straw man you tried to set up. Go slurp up some more propaganda, it will make you feel better.

            1. Lefty665,

              Whether Ukraine is admitted into NATO is a NATO decision, not a US decision, so we cannot threaten to admit Ukraine into NATO, as we do not have the power to do so.

              Thanks for correcting me about the nature of the US nuclear weapons in Europe. My mistake. This says that there are 150 US nuclear bombs in those countries, not 60:

              “Those [AEGIS Ashore] control and fire offensive nuclear missiles …”

              That’s not my impression of the AEGIS Ashore missiles. What are you taking as evidence that they’re built to fire nuclear missiles? Or did you only mean to say that they can fire offensive non-nuclear missiles as well as defensive ones? (If you only meant the latter, I agree.)

              “Russia has no more reason to tolerate that than we did missiles in Cuba.”

              Even if you believe that, these weapons systems aren’t in Ukraine. But Ukraine is the country that Russia invaded, so your argument doesn’t explain the invasion of Ukraine. If they’re concerned with the US missiles in other countries on their border, then the thing to do is insist that we remove them from those other countries, not start a war in Ukraine.

              1. anon @ 8:59

                You are too funny. Amazing that you can assert that NATO is not run by the US with a straight face. You have a future in comedy.

                We have different sources on the number of tactical nukes in Europe. The number is very finite, and the difference not material.

                Your impression is wrong. You need to read what is published on the AEGIS systems. They are both defensive and offensive systems and fire a variety of missiles. Some of them are nuclear, some can be either nuclear or conventional, and some are conventional only. It is pretty simple really. Your ignorance does not make a compelling argument.

                Keep spouting the propaganda, it seems to make you feel better.

                I clearly explained the issues with the Ukraine above. There’s no need to repeat it just because you blather nonsense here. Go back and read what I have said before.

                Bob Dylan had it right in 1962, not much has changed since then. You lemmings are likely to get us all killed this time.

                Come you Masters of War, you that build the big guns
                You that build the death planes, you that build all the bombs
                You that hide behind walls, you that hide behind desks
                I just want you to know I can see through your masks

            2. . We have put hostile forces, and NATO member countries on Russia’s doorstep.

              They are NOT hostile forces. They are defensive forces. That is a huge difference.

    2. The caveat is that the USA, along with other countries, notably Russia is among those, in the Budapest Memoranda in exchange for Ukraine to give up their nukes that there were certain security guarantees. In 2014, the USA did nothing when Russia invaded and we have again done nothing.

      Now, whether we should have ever entered into that agreement is a different discussion– but what has become absolutely clear to anyone paying attention to the USA’s actions in 2021 & 2022 is that our word is absolutely worthless.

      1. But a least Biden has nominated a black judge for the Supreme Court and a transgender as HHS Secretary; a gay transportation secretary and a woman at Treasury. All the identity politics boxes have been checked. Plus the Secretary of Defense finally got to act like Darth Vader when he wore a mask and face shield. Now that is Progressive success!

        1. Svelaz— Yup, Biden has done all of that. Our country looks incompetent, managed by imbeciles. And I think it is.

          Actual competency is very far down the list when candidates for these jobs are being considered.

          1. It does not look good for the USA. Expect Biden and Democrats in Congress to support a WWIII to CYA.


            “The Democrats have politicized our intelligence committee. You’ve watched it year after year since Adam Schiff has become chair,” McCarthy (R-Calif.) told reporters. “No, he doesn’t warn us about Ukraine or Afghanistan or what’s happening around the world. He tells you about politics.

            “But the worst part of it is, you cannot trust what he tells you, that he lies to us,” he continued. “Just watch what has happened. Two years ago, Schiff stated the emails found from Hunter Biden were all [a] smear on Joe Biden [that] comes from the Kremlin. That’s what the head of the Intel [Committee] said.”

      2. c-mw @5:57

        Yeah on our word being worthless, Putin said last spring that the US is incapable of keeping agreements. He was right (it happens sometimes).

        On the Budapest Memoranda, Zelensky came back from the European Security Conference last month and proclaimed that the Ukraine could once again have nuclear weapons. Putin clearly declared in his speech announcing the invasion that one of the reasons they were going in was that Russia would never permit Ukraine to have nuclear weapons again.

        Putin also observed that Ukraine had technology left over from the USSR that made it capable of building nukes. I discounted that until the nuclear power plants got into the news. Then it became clear that Ukraine also had enough plutonium in spent fuel rod storage to actually build nuclear weapons. Declared intent plus capability are compelling. We would not tolerate that in Cuba.

      3. We’ve done a bunch of things, including providing Ukraine with weapons, providing Ukraine with military intel, and working internationally on sweeping financial sanctions against Russia. That you call this “nothing” suggests that you’re a bit biased in your assessment.

    3. Lefty,

      Very sensible comment. I would say you speak only the obvious, but there are a lot of people, some of them dangerously close to the levers of power, who seem incapable of seeing what you see so clearly. I knew, and said on Turley’s site about a year ago, that the world would be in danger with Biden in the White House. That, too, was obvious.

      1. young @5:58

        Thank you. Sometimes I’m pleased to have a marvelous grasp of the obvious, others I’m pretty sure it’s damning with faint praise.

        Yeah, last election was a horrible choice. I voted 3rd party because I couldn’t stand to vote for either of them. You were exactly right about Biden. He’s clearly soft in the head, and was not very bright before that. The group of idiotic neocon Obama retreads that are running things are scary in deep over their (and our) heads.

        It seemed to me that one of the things Trump got right was committing us to get out of Afghanistan. The disaster and debacle the Biden Administration turned that into foreshadowed where we are today in Ukraine. Obama was right, never underestimate Joe’s ability to F* things up. We have needlessly put the world in danger, and worse show no signs of trying to get any of us out alive. I was terrified in the fall of 1962. I am today too.

    1. Too late, the Chinese operate through labor and environmental arbitrage, conduct practical and actual slavery, operate biolabs, and subscribe to the Pro-Choice religion (e.g. one-child/selective-child or wicked solution), at our pleasure. The Biden/Maidan/Slavic Spring is a hope for change (i.e. acquisition of hydrocarbons and mineral wealth) through shared/shifted responsibility that has left Ukrainians, from both sides of the 2014 coup, at forward-looking risk, and will accelerate progressive prices through inflation in allied nations. Take a knee, #UsToo, indeed.

  11. “From Congress to the arts, critics of the war are being labeled “traitors” and “agents of Russia.””

    No, these are not critics of the war. This is Putin’s war. Russia has invaded Ukraine. Pro-Russia is pro-war. Anti-Russia is anti-war.

    1. No, this is America´s war and you are a puppet. A useful idiot for the elite. You are being led by the nose by the Neo-cons and Neo-libs. You are Cheney´s dog…now go bark.

      1. “America’s war” indeed what did we, push Russia’s tanks over Ukraine’s border? I went to my nephew’s 3rd birthday party so I have heard some exceedingly silly things today but that might just take the prize. Are you being compensated for being a goose on the internet, or is this just what you have instead of a life or something? You couldn’t possibly believe this no one’s that stupid.

    2. The war in Ukraine has been in progress, and the Ukrainian people at risk, since the Slavic Spring, the coup in 2014 overturned the EU-certified democratic election. Russians, for their part, had the audacity to provide essential services in Crimea where they were denied, then a vote to ally with Russia, and, late, perhaps, stand up with Ukrainians in the Donbass province to the Kiev-aligned military and paramilitary axis that have been carrying out assaults, attacks for over 32 trimesters. The exposure of the biolabs a la Wuhan, was probably known, but SARS-CoV-2 made them an existential, international issue.

  12. One could make a very strong argument that: American security agency leaders and intelligence agency leaders overwhelmingly fear our “First Amendment” more than any foreign threat of any kind. Physical threats they can deal with and know how to solve, but totalitarian impulses to control thought, speech and association can only be solved covertly or grossly exploiting unconstitutional laws (ie: Espionage Act, Patriot Act, etc).

    In 2022, post-9/11 practices have become permanent. A permanent revocation of guaranteed constitutional rights without the legally required constitutional-amendment process. Americans surrended those rights without even a whimper.

    James Madison warned that a nation cannot have democracy when a nation is in a constant state of wartime emergency. The U.S. Constitution and it’s circumscribing federal statutes are meaningless during wartime so constant war destroys America itself.

  13. Here you go: from Newsweek:

    “In a 35-minute interview aired Friday on Russian state-owned television network RT, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov claimed that Fox News is the only American media outlet that offers “alternative” points of view, and called the removal of former President Donald Trump from Twitter and other social media “censorship.”

    This comes as the latest back-and-forth on media and propaganda between the two countries as the war in Ukraine rages on.

    “So we know the manners and the tricks which are being used by the Western countries to manipulate media,” Lavrov said. “We understood long ago that there is no such thing as an independent Western media. If you take the United States only Fox News is trying to present some alternative points of view.”

    “But when you see, you watch other channels, and when you—watch, read the social networks and internet platforms, when the acting president was blocked, as you know, and this censorship continues in a very big way and the substitution of notions whenever something is happening by the way of mass protest mass demonstrations, which they don’t like, they immediately call it domestic terrorism. So it’s a war, and it’s a war which involves the methods of information terrorism. There is no doubt about this.”

    Russian Foreign Minister On Sanctions: Under No ‘Illusion’ They Can Rely On West
    Lavrov also discussed Presidents Joe Biden and Volodymyr Zelensky, as well as several other topics like the White House’s reported recent meetings with TikTok creators and the widely disputed claim that the United States is funding dangerous biolabs in Ukraine and around the globe.

    He said that Russia will adapt to the sanctions that have been placed on the nation by the West and said they learned how to “rely” on themselves when sanctions were placed on Russia in 2014-15 after the annexation of Crimea.

    In discussing the votes that the United Nations has held condemning Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, Lavrov claimed that many of the countries who have not imposed sanctions on Russia only voted to condemn Russia under “pressure” from the U.S. and other Western nations.

    Lavrov also claimed that Russia’s military discovered documents that would prove the controversial and widely disputed claims that the United States is funding biological labs in Ukraine that are studying dangerous pathogens and viruses that could be weaponized against Russia and other countries.

    He claimed that the U.S. is funding over 300 labs around the world, much larger accusations than the dozens of labs throughout Ukraine that Russia has previously accused the U.S. of funding. The U.S. has acknowledged the existence of labs in Ukraine that receive American funding but has maintained that they are not performing research with the intent to weaponize anything.

    Biden is an experienced politician that knows how dangerous the U.S. complying with Zelensky’s requests of establishing a no-fly zone and providing more weapons would be, Lavrov said. Lavrov believes that Zelensky is relying on “less responsible” politicians in Congress and around the world to pressure Biden into providing more support and taking a more confrontational stance with Russia, which is what he believes Zelensky wants.

    “Any cargo moving into Ukrainian territory which we would believe is carrying weapons would be fair game,” Lavrov said of Russia’s preparedness to “remove any threat to the Russian Federation coming from Ukrainian soil.”

    Lavrov also repeated several Russian claims, continuing to call the invasion a “special military operation” and said Russia’s goals remain the same, claiming that “denazification is an absolute must.”

    And, this is what Turley supports: his employer, part of Russian propaganda.

    1. This is not normal behavior. Even Joe admits he is not well.

      You are the reason why Dictators like Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Castro etc thrive, because they have useful idiots covering for them.

    2. Just think Natacha. What if your compatriots at The New York times would not have been instrumental in covering up the Hunter Biden laptop? What if your comrades in arms wouldn’t have promoted the phony RussiaGate story? What if the news outlets that you love wouldn’t have gone all in on the Steele Dossier? What if Democratic politicians didn’t call for even more censorship? If the left wing news agencies and politicians wouldn’t have done all these things Putin wouldn’t have anything to talk about. Putin is simply pointing out your own totalitarian actions. Here he is pointing out the pot calling the kettle black. It is you Natacha and your leftist friends who have provided Putin the propaganda ammunition he needs. He is simply pointing out what you and your ilk have done over the last six years. After dealing him his hand you are somehow surprised that you must read it and weep.

    3. “. . . part of Russian propaganda.”

      In fact, it is the Green New Deal zealots (AOC, Kerry, et al.) who are aiding and abetting Putin. Their kneecapping of the U.S. energy industry causes the world-wide price of oil and gas to skyrocket. Guess who benefits from their destructive policies? — Putin. Their policies have contributed to his war chest — a war chest he is now using to invade Ukraine. Those scum have Ukrainian blood on their hands.

  14. “Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Communist Party of the United States?” — 1947

    “Have you now or have you ever refused to genuflect before the Deep State, or refused to follow any of our Deep State Mandates? — 2022

    1. Democracy dies in darkness. The only reason Biden got elected was a complicit fraudulent media. The 2020 election was indeed stolen. Corporate journalism dies in sunlight. Maybe garlic will work too.

      We should all be willing to do our part and experiment with oak stakes and silver. Who should we check first, to see if a stake through the heart and decapitation works as well on jurinalists as vampires?

      As long as everyone who pushed the impeachment circuses and suppressed the laptop story ends up in prison, it should work out fine…maybe public lynching would send a clear message. Thoughts?

  15. I find it fascinating that so many people who purportedly believe in due process also believe that they are able to ascertain a war crime based on snippets of video distributed by one side during a war, especially since all sides in a war engage in propagnda designed to show their enemy as ruthless, evil, and outside the laws of war.
    But war is a nasty business, and once one is underway, death and destruction are inevitable, which is why Michael Walzer argue that whoever is responsible for a war bears responsibility for the savagery accompanying war. Both soldiers and civilians die during wars, which is why they try to flee battle zones. But it is hard to escape bombers and missiles, and if you an army is defending a city, it is going to be shelled and bombed, and if a civilian picks up a Molotov cocktail or a rifle or a pistol or an anti-tank weapon to defend her home, then she is no longer a mother or a sister or a daughter; she is a combatant, and not only is she a legitimate target, but the people around her now may be killed unintentionally because most bullets, artillery shells, and bombs are dumb weapons and getting them to hit the target can be very difficult.
    The dumb nature of ordnance is one of the reasons that the Allies resorted to carpet bombing during WW2; their bombs tended to fall within a one-mile radius of the target from 30,000 feet. Carpet bombing also starved Germany’s war industry of workers by killing tens of thousands of men, women, and children during the thousand-plane raids, which dropped high-explosive and incendiary bombs in order to assure maximum damage, and the resulting fire-storms left very little of Dresden, Cologne, and Hamburg, or of Tokyo, which the Americans fire-bombed in May 1945.
    Nor do armies willingly enter cities; they shell them. Watch Black Hawk Down, and you will begin to understand why infantry are reluctant to enter an intact urban area. The Germans shelled Warsaw in 1939, the Soviets shelled Berlin in 1945, and the Yugoslav shelled Vukovar in 1991, and we shelled and bombed various cities in World War II.
    In reality, it is difficult to prove a war crime, but easy to allege one, so it is reckless to casually attribute war crimes to any side, when either or both might bear responsibility for what appears to be a war crime. Propagandists constantly allege war crimes because doing so stirs emotions and short-circuits reason, as J. M. Read showed in Atrocity Propanda, which dealt with WW1. It is much more difficult to ascertain exactly what happens on a battlefield, as the transcripts of trials for war crimes will show. That is why the prosecution at the ICTY invented the charge of Joint Criminal Enterprise, which inculpates everybody involved for what anybody on his side might do, a slight of hand that does away with such inconvenient things as mens rea and evidence and leads to allegations of collective guilt. It is a tempting thing because it is much easier to accuse your enemy of being evil than it is to understand his motives, but it is dangerous to view the enemy as collectively evil because when you do so you are well on your way to accepting collective punishment and mass murder as legitimate.

      1. “ ….ruthless dictator. He has poisoned some of his political rivals and imprisoned other of his rivals.”

        Odd, that description fits Biden’s handlers to a tee. Throw in Kamala’s cackling, and one can hear Nazi gas chambers releasing cyanide.

        1. I named Putin in describing him. We know the names of some of the rivals he poisoned, like Alexei Navalny and Alexander Litvinenko. We can name some of the rivals he imprisoned, like Navalny and Mikhail Khodorkovsky.

          You can’t even name “Biden’s handlers,” much less can you name rivals who were poisoned or imprisoned.

          You’re just a conservative troll.

          1. Anon @3:34
            “Biden’s handlers,” Ron Klain, Antony Blinken, Jake Sullivan, Susan Rice, Victoria Nuland There’s 5 of them, and there are more.

            1. Now name the Biden rivals you claim that Ron Klain, Antony Blinken, Jake Sullivan, Susan Rice, and Victoria Nuland poisoned and imprisoned. I’ll get the popcorn.

              1. You should have reached for anti-diarrheal medication. Your treasonous blithering idiot, Joe Bidet, has been lying to Americans since he debated a US President who was a victim of a coup. All of the coup organizers should be tried for treason, and if found guilty, shot, hung and quartered.


      2. There is a difference between “targeting” and “hitting.” Just because an artillery shell strikes a hospital or school doesn’t mean it was the target. Targeting artillery is not an exact science and accuracy is not 100%. By the way, in war, the side that is losing always screams about war crimes and atrocities.

      3. Actually, you need to prove which side caused the damage to the hospital, then prove that the damage was caused intentionally (small stuff, evidence, mens rea, chain of command, you know, the sort of thing that goes on in a courtroom). You also need to be sure that there were no weapons in or around the hospital, because if there were, then the hospital becomes, in a term I believe we coined, “collateral damage.” You can’t just point and yell ‘war crime’ (or is that ‘squirrel’?)
        Instead of the popular press, let’s try Donald A. Wells, War Crimes and Laws of War and begin with the UN General Asssembly refusal to codify the Nuremberg principles and the failure to provide a clear definition of “aggressive war” (a concept created for the tribunal). Then let’s move to military necessity and Wells’ conclusion that Nuremberg was “never more than a case of victor’s justice” and Quincy Wright’s suggestion that the U.S. was the aggressor in Vietnam, but LBJ was never tried. We could also do the 250:1 kill ratio for the USMC in Haiti, and Paul Sieghart’s observation that “justice” lacks a universally accepted definition, so international law “rest essentially on consent” via treay or practice. Or perhaps Richard Wassertrom’s observation that war corrupts the ability to make moral choices, and Thomas Nagel’s discussion of the law of double effect in war and the difference between a deliberate act and the side effect of another deliberate act, like “area” bombing. Or maybe Hedley Bull’s definition of states as “a society without a government” which function thanks to diplomacy and war, with international law codifying some behavior and balance of power preserving the peace; international law then becomes merely the “habitual intercourse of independent communities over time.” But if a given community threatens its neighbors, their only recourse is, you guessed it, war.
        There are two points that need stressing —
        First, “the international community” as employed by Blinken, Winken, and Nod only refers to the clique led by the United States — the UK, the EU, NATO, Japan, Taiwan, and some Latin American states. It does not, and never has, included Russia (a.k.a., the Soviet Union), China, or India. To paraphase Ms. Pelosi, Great Poweres gonna do what Great Powers gonna do. Lavrov’s recent interview makes it clear that we have reached a pivotal point in international relations much like the one that was reached in 1939 — the West has been so overbearing in the eyes of the Russians and Chinese that they want as little as possible to do with “the international community” (whose CEOs have magnaimously given China their trade secrets, industrial processes, and money).
        Second, no country is run by a single man (or woman); they are run by elites, so to demonize or lionize an individual and pretend that he or she is responsible for every decision is for kids in grade school, and if you style yourself one of the “adults in the room,” you probably are a elementary school teacher. You certainly are not a diplomat. Sidney Hook is the guy to read on great men, and he is clear that they are few and far between; most just go along and try to stay a bit ahead of events. Some, of course, have trouble finding the bathroom, and some stay in office past their due date. The point is that Putin is not Evil any more than Biden is Good, and to pretend that either is omnipotent and can direct a shell on a battlefield is bonkers.

        1. If you cannot even bring yourself to admit that the Nuremberg trials were justified, then there’s something wrong with your morals.

          1. The trials were blunders. The conclusions were foregone in most instances. Churchill and Stalin probably were closer to the mark saying the Nazis should simply be shot summarily.

            Where is the Nuremburg Code now while Western governments are compelling citizens to get an experimental shot with unknown dangers? Everyone rages about the Tuskegee study but none of those folks were injected with potentially dangerous experimental substances.

            1. Come to think of it, if Fauci and Collins were to face trial under the same legal standards that ended in several [12?] Nazi doctors being hanged they….

      4. I doubt the Russians are deliberately targeting hospitals. If nothing else it is not cost effective. You want your enemy to spend resources on medical treatment. That’s why badly wounding a soldier is better than just killing him. It’s the numbers. Costs more to treat than to bury.

        But the so-called Palestinians do in fact target innocents like that in Israel. It they are at war they are committing war crimes. If not at war they are committing murder of children.

    1. I find it disturbing that people like you try to find a way to say that Putin isn’t a war criminal because we in the US allegedly are only hearing one side of “the story”. What is Putin’s story? He has told us: he will keep murdering Ukrainians unless they give up claim to certain land within their borders and agree not to join NATO. His alleged rationale for invading the Crimea and eastern parts of Ukraine initially was because these people are really Russians held hostage by Ukraine, and that Ukraine is being run by Nazis, but these are just lies–the people there don’t want to be part of Russia and Zelenskyy is Jewish. And, he hasn’t stopped with just those regions, either: he’s going fully Monty–he wants ALL of Ukraine. He’s already sent 3 assassination squads after Zelenskyy, but they didn’t succeed. He murders and poisons his critics, and people like you defend him or at least try to sow seeds of doubt about his motives? I can perceive only one reason: because your hero is a puppet of Putin and made a public ass of himself by praising Putin’s invasion of Ukraine, calling it “smart, savvy and wonderful”, and it’s hard to walk back such outrageousness. Not all Trump voters are disciples, and this has driven away many of them because it has opened their eyes to the callous, arrogant narcissist he really is.

      Why is Putin afraid of NATO? Because the US is part of NATO, and like other members, has pledged to defend any other member that is invaded or threatened. Given the opportunity, the US would bury him and he knows it. Putin won’t stop until he’s taken over all of Ukraine and has subjugated all of its citizens to his tyranny, which includes killing or jailing any protesters or those who speak the truth to his power. If he gets away with going after Ukraine, Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania are next, because he wants to control the Black Sea and Baltic Sea.

      That’s why, thank God, Trump is gone– he already said that he’d try to pull the US out of NATO because he’s a puppet of Putin, just like the other puppets he’s trying to install in cities in Ukraine. And, women, mothers, daughters, sons, husbands and fathers who defend their homeland are NOT combatants, and thus, “fair game”, either. They are patriots defending their homeland and right to self-determination, which is a value we patriotic Americans cherish and which we and our ancestors have fought to the death for.

      Purtin is an proven murderer: he even sent assassinators to England to poison a critic of his and his daughter. He put a nerve agent into a critic’s underwear, other critics have disappeared and he invaded Ukraine because he’s afraid it would join NATO and thwart his plan for domination of the area and control of political leaders who oppose him. Putin is a war criminal, and you are either delusional if you don’t understand why or you are trying to help get Trump out of the mess his stupid mouth has gotten him into. That’s why Comrade Carlson has said the indefensible things he has to support Putin, but, thankfully, it’s not working.

      1. Yeah and Bush wiped out Saddam Hussein’s family. Give it a break. We are no better than any other warmongering country. Crawl back under the covers or go to Ukraine and put your money where your mouth it.

    2. I am another old guy and not only have I been in a war, I’ve written extensively about them and I agree with you 100%. However, the term “carpet bombing” doesn’t really apply. Carpet bombing is laying down a “carpet” of bombs along a specified path in an attempt to destroy a target, usually troops. The US Army Air Forces used a procedure of drawing a circle around the target with the center as the aiming point. They didn’t specifically “target” civilians but knew they were killing hundreds on each mission, but justified it for the reasons you gave. The British turned to nighttime raids early in the war using pathfinders to start fires then using those fires as an aiming point. Lemay used similar tactics against Japan. Great comment and it’s right on target! (PTP.)

  16. Turley: you are such a hypocrite: complaining about backlash against Russians who specifically refuse to condemn the mass murder of Ukrainians. Isn’t it a form of freedom of expression to reject those who tacitly support mass murder? Why should a place like the Met provide a platform for or help to promote the career of an opera singer who supports Putin, and thus, invite boycotts and other retribution? Accusing those who reject supporters of mass murder of “cancelling” is just as wrong, according to your logic.

    And, you are intentionally distorting the facts when you claim: “The Biden Administration has acknowledged that bio labs exist but denounced suggestions that these were bio weapons labs”. What Ms. Nuland actually said is that there is fear that the laboratories in Ukraine that culture specimens and do the same kind of routine identification and evaluation of bacteria and viruses as other labs here in American and elsewhere could be turned into labs that produce biological warfare material IF THE RUSSIANS GOT CONTROL OF THEM. So, it’s not a matter of “denouncing suggestions that these were bio weapons labs”–THEY AREN’T BIO WEAPONS LABS, but could be turned into them if Russia got hold of them, which is something that hosts on your employer’s media outlet routinely lie about. Of course, Turley, you have the free speech right to distort the truth and imply that Ms. Nuland and the Biden Administration are lying about these really being bio weapons labs, and I have the free speech right to call out your lies, just as those who are criticizing Comrade Carlson for his pro-Putin lies. So, today’s little trash piece is really about nothing other than the usual stirring up of the disciples by adding fuel to the criticism of those they’ve been taught to hate: Whoopi Goldberg, Mitt Romney, Claire McCaskill and Ana Navarro. And, Paul Robeson admitted that he was a Communist and was proud of it. We were in the midst of a cold war at the time, with Kruschev promising “we will bury you”. Robeson moved to England because Communists weren’t welcome here at the time.

    1. It must be really horrible to force yourself to visit a site where all you do is complain. It is your right to do so, as it is your right to be miserable.

      Just remember, they’ll come for you too

      1. Joy and Leftism are like oil and water. Leftists are only as happy as their most miserable victim. Even when Leftists terminate life in a baby, they have no joy; they justify their murder and portray themselves as victims. Hillary comes to mind. To be a Progressive means to wallow in bile, preferably bile that is vomited and aimed toward their opponent which includes everyone. Progressives lack loving families, have unsuccessful marriages, they produce dysfunctional children and are examples of animals that defy reason and intellect. Even animals protect their newborn babies, nurture their children, fiercely fight for their own pack, and will engage only when provoked.

        Leftists live to provoke others, engage in fights with others with one catch: they will get their butts kicked then play the victim and demand compensation. Natacha, Dennis McIntyre, Enigma, Jeff, Fishwings, etc…all follow the same destructive trajectory involving the 10 P’s: Predictable. Petulant. Perverse. Piteous. Plaintiff. Peevish. Pathetic. Peremptory. Pestilent. Psychotic.


    2. “Isn’t it a form of freedom of expression to reject those who tacitly support mass murder?”

      Not if “reject” means depriving someone of employment. NO ONE considers that “expression.”

  17. What constitutes Treason? In the Oxford Dictionary it constitutes “betrayal of one’s nation”. In Black’s Law Dictionary there are additional terms “The offense of attempting to overthrow the government of the state to which the offender owes allegiance; or of betraying the state into the hands of a foreign power.”

    Neither Carlson nor Gabbard should be portrayed as Traitors; they do not fit the definition. There have been real traitors the likes of Ames, Tokyo Rose, Rosenberg’s, Hanssen, Czolgosz, John Walker, or the most famous Benedict Arnold? What are the charges against Carlson or Gabbard? How did they betray, attempt an overthrow, or swear allegiance to Russia? When did it become treasonous to speak against governmental actions you may not agree with? Has America declared War against Russia?

    Those that use such a term to define others that disagree either do not know the true definition, are obtuse (meaning, dense/dim-witted), or only see the obverse side of the coin regardless of the consequences which could befall America. It seems daily Nit-Wits fall from the rocks speaking as though their views are proof positive, and preaching like the Salem Arrogates condemning others without proof.

    Enough of this nonsense!

    1. Actually, the US Constitution defines treason, and it stipulates that it only consists of providing aid and comfort to an enemy in wartime.

Comments are closed.