Book Review: The Propagandist

You may also like...

23 Responses

  1. Kevin says:

    The only colluding worth mentioning is with the State of Israel. Surprised you bought into the Russian hype.

    • Will B. says:

      The issue in this essay is that Corsi seeks to attack the Russia collusion narrative without actually engaging its most salient parts, and at the same time repeatedly misrepresenting the facts when carrying on with his diversion strategy. Let’s wait for Mueller’s next indictments to see if this story really has legs.

      Trump’s “collusion” with Israel is noteworthy, though not as a subject of this review, if only because contrary to his earlier boasts to AIPAC he could not be bought, it seems that Sheldon Adelson did buy him out, and Trump has delivered on Jerusalem, Iran, and now has cut off a lot of aid for the Palestinians, all the while a secretive peace plan has been developed by a group of led by Kushner who support the “settler” agenda.

      • Kevin says:

        My statement still stands.

        • Will B. says:

          Good for you.

          Mueller’s investigation is not about collusion with Israel or the Israel Lobby. Though, in the extremely unlikely event that was the subject of a criminal investigation, one can be sure that Corsi will be deeply embedded in any effort to denounce and discredit such an activity. Afterall, among Obama’s many sins, according to Corsi’s “The Obama Nation” was his “anti-Israel” foreign policy.

          • Kevin says:

            I don’t think you comprehend my original statement. I’m not comparing the two (Israel & Russia), I’m simply stating that this Russian blabbering is a smoke-screen for actually undeniable proof of colluding, which is with Israel. Obama wasn’t anti-Israel, furthest thing from it. Billions of billions of dollars in security and was fighting in Syria, which is for Israel.

    • Johnnie Walker Read says:

      Yup, Israel, the 600 pound gorilla in the room that 98% of the “conspiracy analyst ” chose to ignore. You are absolutely correct Kevin.

      • Kevin says:

        I would say 99.99999999999% choose to ignore.

        • Will B. says:

          And I think you misunderstand my intent which is to highlight how Corsi seeks to attack the Russia investigation without engaging with its core allegations. And if Israel angle was the topic of concern you can be sure that Corsi, the anti-Deep State insurgent, would be following the establishment pro-Israel line. And yes, contrary to Corsi’s scare campaign and that of the pro-Israel lobby, Obama was strongly pro-Israel, except for the Iran deal, which they opposed and which Trump has undone.

          • Kevin says:

            No, I understand your intent, I just don’t find it to be an “issue” worth discussing that holds any importance. Also, if you read Brookings “Path to Persia”…it clearly states that the goal is to set up a deal with Iran and have Iran “appear” to fault on it so “action” can take place, hence, the “Iran Deal”. Part of the Zionist plan…there is always a reason and you have no say it the matter whatsoever.

  2. Will B. says:

    Kevin, aI presume you are referring to this section from “Which Path to Persia?” by the Brookings Institution:

    “The best way to minimize international opprobrium and maximize support (however, grudging or covert) is to strike only when there is a widespread conviction that the Iranians were given but then rejected a superb offer—one so good that only a regime determined to acquire nuclear weapons and acquire them for the wrong reasons would turn it down. Under those circumstances, the United States (or Israel) could portray its operations as taken in sorrow, not anger, and at least some in the international community would conclude that the Iranians “brought it on themselves” by refusing a very good deal.” (p.39).

    I think you have misrepresented the context of this statement, which is within a discussion of the advantages of one option – that of “Persuasion” and then in the frame of what those seeking regime change might want to to do. Merely one of of many observations in a lengthy paper that actually concludes without making a firm recommendation. So I don’t think it was the Obama Administration’s strategy to put up a deal in bad faith, to get the Iranians to back out, providing the impetus for an invasion. Anyway, it’s all moot now as Trump has decided to rip up the agreement and try to crush Iran with sanctions, and who knows what might come later from a man who only a few years back was arguing the US should “take the oil” from Iraq so Iran can’t get it?

    The problem, though is that the core premise of that study, written by a group of pro-Israel hacks from the Saban Center, is that Iran having nuclear weapons is as unacceptable as Iran having an independent foreign policy in the region. Hence the range of options manage to all be equally offensive in that their intent is to constrain Iran’s sovereignty (save for the “Engagement” option, which they pour cold water by noting that Israel may act independently if “Israeli leaders believe that their interests are being ill served by U.S.-Iranian negotiations” (p.58).

    Trump’s entanglement with the pro-Israel lobby is worthy of further dissection, but not in this review.

    • Kevin says:

      I misrepresented it when the “plan” is being followed – got it. I will let you get back to muh media is being meddled with by the Russians.

      • Will B. says:

        The issue is whether or not the Iran deal was negotiated in bad faith, that it was meant to fail. You seem to think the Brookings report proves that it was the intent all along. I am not so sure it is the smoking gun.

        • Kevin says:

          But yet it happened.

          • Will B. says:

            Indeed. You would have to prove intent, and that can be hard. But I would argue that irrespective of Obama’s intent on that issue, his successor is running strong with a pro-Israel agenda which made it inevitable that he would undo that arrangement. So far, to prove his pro-Israel bona fides, Trump has given Israel what it wanted: he’s ditched the Iran deal; recognized Jerusalem; stitched up a plan that sounds like it will try to reclassify West Bank Palestinians as Jordanians (making cleansing easier); and at Netanyahu’s request halted US contributions to UNRWA.

            Still I wonder, if all the authors of the “Which Path to Persia” had condemned Obama’s Iran agreement, would your regard that as confirming or refuting the theory you outlined above? What could possibly disprove that theory?

  3. Kevin says:

    Will – you can extract the hell out of anything I write, but again I emphasize that the Yinon Plan has been followed and the trajectory of US foreign policy will continue this path, regardless of what puppet sits in the White House. What’s next, the PNAC authors “didn’t real mean” they wanted another “Pearl Harbor”, just some subjective metaphor? Come on. Grow up.

  4. Will B. says:

    And lo and behold the relationship Corsi concealed in his book comes back to bite him:

    “Jerome Corsi, a conspiracy theorist and political commentator with connections to the former Trump adviser Roger J. Stone Jr., has been subpoenaed to testify on Friday before the grand jury in the special counsel investigation into Russia’s election interference and whether Trump associates conspired with the effort, his lawyer said on Wednesday.”

    The lawyer, David Gray, said that he anticipates that investigators for the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, plan to ask Mr. Corsi about his discussions with Mr. Stone, who appeared to publicly predict in 2016 that WikiLeaks planned to publish material damaging to Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign.

    “He fully intends to comply with the subpoena,” Mr. Gray said, adding that the subpoena was not specific about the topic but that he and his client anticipated “it has to do with his communications with Roger Stone.”

  5. Lyle says:

    The important thing bloc for each Trump and the Republican Party is made up of white Christian evangelicals.
    Eight out of ten of those voters solid ballots
    for Trump, and intensely religious voters make up forty % of the Republican electorate.

    • Will.B says:

      Right, so they can’t be ignored and its representatives can and do form a faction within the power-elite in their own right.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *