Washington Post has been particularly ridiculous this season
 

The WaPo headline of last night said Russian hackers penetrated the electrical grid through a utility in Vermont!!

It turns out there was a lone laptop involved, quickly isolated, infected with what the community calls "commodity malware" - a virus developed and then sold and widely spread. Created in Russia, likely -- but who used it? No-one can say right now!

In the light of morning day, the WaPo actually contacted the utility and got the details -- someone tried actual journalism! -- and decided to change their headline to something less ominous.

But by then the story had tweaked everyone's pleasure centers. This is how we end up with bubble facts. A virus created and sold by Russian hackers, making it onto a utility company laptop, is not "Russia hacking the power grid". In fact it is not actually NEWS -- talk to anyone in IT who's had a shitty accountant in the office, clicking on things with her laptop... were the Russians hacking my old AM/FM radio data services company too???

The idea that there is some kind of threat is only there for the drama of it. And that drama only works because we don't understand the whole thing. We don't understand, we don't know the facts, and we're entirely willing to BELIEVE. Ya remember Y2K?

I want to believe™.

Believe you me, no shit, looky there, just as you wanted to think, couldn't be anything else. Oh look, there's another one.

Buy a newspaper mister?

That is how most data breeches are done. When dealing with the grid, any breech by simplistic software is a major news story. Breeching (stealing) the payroll for a company is a problem - not anywhere as serious. Power grid utilities cannot accept such trivial software breeching on any of their computers. Since that is how passwords are stolen to, in one case, cause major machine to self-destruction.

If commodity malware can breech security, then how bad is their security? A threat even to power for The Cellar. Never forget a massive 2003 blackout created by operational mismanagement in only one company in Ohio - First Energy. A looming disaster fortunately and successfully stopped by PJM, New England Power Authority, and Quebec Electric.

What's easier than hacking a utility's computer network?

Hacking the maintenance supervisor's laptop.

OK, I just started on some homeopathic remedy just a bit ago, and (when normally I can understand TW), I just cant now. I'll re-read it later.

I'm having a bit of a fake news moment here.

lol, thats funny, are you using the same?

Nah, I just celebrated 9(?) years without any sort of remedy. I truly wish some news organization would step up their game.

:) Congratulations...?

For me it's good. I've peeled away enough layers to be okay with myself unadulterated.

good

A few really major lefty journalists have taken notice. Glenn Greenwald gave the WaPo a huge slap for it. Because it's like the WMD days:

Matt Taibbi wrote two days ago (before the WaPo bogosity), "Something About This Russia Story Stinks: Nearly a decade and a half after the Iraq-WMD faceplant, the American press is again asked to co-sign a dubious intelligence assessment" and he had the same complaint about the administration's "I offer you no proof but obviously Russia did it":

I've always maintained this nation went to hell when the Commies quit the cold war.
Before that we had full employment, a chicken in every pot, two cars in every garage.

The Post is doing their part to make America great again.

I read Taibbi's article. He is mostly clear-headed (in my opinion). He is the one, though, that sparked my 'puppet masters' conspiracy theory belief, with his 'vampire squid' characterization of Goldman Sachs. I believe he wrote honestly about his feelings on this matter.

To be fair, the backlash and regret over the WMD claims stem from the invasion and war they were used to justify. Unless someone is proposing we invade Russia, I'm not sure there are really the same stakes involved.

Personally, I think we know darn well Russia did it, but to admit how we know would either tip them off to their weaknesses, or else prove that we've done the same shit a thousand times. Anyone remember when the NSA got caught bugging every major leader in Europe?

Frankly I don't give a crap if they did do it. As many have pointed out, all they did was release genuine information. They didn't falsify anything. People are mad because the hack didn't provide the opposition equal time? This ain't Brinkley and Huntley, hire your own damn hackers if you want the RNC's dirty laundry to be aired. Or, you know, try not having any dirty laundry of your own. It's like the mom finds drugs in her kid's room, and he's trying to be mad about how she violated his trust by going through his stuff. You got caught, don't act like you have the moral high ground.

What was really so bad about what they revealed. The email supporting the Democrats manipulation of the primary vote? And so you think that they are crying crocodile tears, or are they just playing the same game the opposition played?

The "You can do anything you want... grab em by the pussy" tape was stolen, is that supposed to matter?

Hillary's paranoia surrounding Russia colored her thought process about a no fly zone in Syria and could have led to military conflict with Russia. Our baby-boomer foreign policy lense distorts reality badly. Trump is a damn kook and could get taken advantage of, but turning down the anti-Russian propaganda is necessary on a small planet.

Do you really not understand why Putin feared Hilary? He could not manipulate her. If Hilary has paranoia, then so do Senators McCain, Graham, McConnell, Speaker Ryan, and most all moderate Senators and diplomats. As well as virtually all American intelligence agencies.

Hilary, Kerry, and other American diplomats were not flakey, kneejerk, and emotional. So Putin needed them replaced by people who are emotional and are not chess players such as Palin, Fiorina, or Cruz. As David Brooks accurately notes, Getting Trump was a bonus.

Military conflicts with Russia - as with any other nation - are avoided by acknowledging and addressing problems up front. Why were Assad's weapons of mass destructive so quickly removed from start to finish all in Oct 2013? The act was phenomenal. Even Russia was fully manipulated into participating in an international coalition (that included Norway, China, Italy, Denmark, Netherlands, Finland, and an international UN team) to dismantle warheads and remove chemicals for Sarin and Mustard gas. All destroyed on a US military cargo ship Cape Ray. It all happened because American and international diplomats confronted Syria and Russia up front with a "no exception permitted" attitude - the red line.

Avoiding war means a hard headed attitude supported by long term planning - that only chess players understand. That was Obama, Scowcroft, both Clintons, Powell, Holbrooke, Kerry, Richard Clarke, George Mitchell, and a long list of other American diplomats.

List of weak kneed strategists included George Jr and Condi Rice. People such as these make war likely. As a result, George Jr left office with two of the longest wars in American history and with American positions deteriorating. A pathetic response by George Jr to China's 9 Dash Line (including Spratly and Parcel Islands) may have made war likely in the next ten years. A firm handed approach backed up with a chess player attitude averts war.

Originally Posted by twBwahahahahahahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!
Stop please, I can't breathe while laughing this hard and I have to wipe the coffee off my monitor.

Because they weren't? Here we go again, again:

https://foreignpolicy.com/2016/08/23...mical-weapons/

Four months ago:

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/0...nations-227385

In all the confusion it's hard to remember who has WMD and who doesn't. All we know for absolute certain, I suppose, is that Assad had them in 2013.

And that means, from when he got them, until 2013, nobody gave a flying fuck. We can call that "leading from behind" because the UN, the US, the EU and whomever else is supposed to give a fuck, actually gave no fucks at all, and then very suddenly pretended to give a fuck when they were actually used politically important.

Maybe instead of not giving a fuck they didn't know. Can we just barge into any country and demand to check every corner of it without evidence or provocation?

You don't give a fuck? I don't either, but it's interesting.

What they did do, was have all the countries sign a Chemical Weapons Convention, in which not only chemical weapons but all the "precursor" chemicals are scheduled and limited, and can't be exported between signatory countries.

OK that didn't work 100%. But perhaps it worked in other cases, who knows?

Right now, the debate is whether Assad will be allowed to have a government after this particular shit is done hitting this particular fan.

"You're soaking in it Democrats!"


"Madge, you've been soaking my foreign policy in Neo-Conservatism!?"


"No no no, it"s only Neo-Conservatism when Republicans do it!"

The Post ran a long front page article clarifying how they got the story wrong and fixing.

I'm glad for that. WaPo seemed more balanced during the election cycle, I'd hate to see them squander their reserved good will in the on-going neo-con red scare.

This is making me realize how out of touch the Democrat establishment is. Somehow releasing the actual emails of the Clinton campaign was worse than the shenanigans the party establishment pulled on Bernie the one guy on the left who had the country's pulse and could have bettered Trump. Placed in the context of our meddling in foreign elections and invasion mania, it doesn't seem to warrant a full on panic. Did they really believe their communications were secure when nobody's are?

Honest and independent news services do that. NY Times did same previously with a reporter that invented stories. Then cited editors who failed to do their job - tomake sure news was honestly reported.

Extremist lefty and neocon news services would not do that. Fox News did not do same with Roger Ailes's sexual misconduct. Neocon sevices are especially flagrant and dishonest these days.

Some are quick accuse NY Times, Washington Post, the network news anchormen and other responsible news sources. Some drink too much kool-aid. Same persons never once confronted and attacked Fox News - that has a history of perverting honestly for a political agenda. Fox News even denied people in the New Orleans Superdome and Convention Center were without food and water for four days. Reporting that honestly was contrary to their political objectives.

Some remained convinced that Saddam has WMDs even after George Jr said he did not. Some still deny a red line that successfully removed WMDs from 13 some sites in Syria. Still deny chemical weapons were removed by an international coalition with total Russian cooperation. Shipped out to Italy by a flotilla of Scandinavian ships. And were destroyed in a US Navy ship.

International response to that red line was so severe that WMD were removed in less than one month in 2013. Nobody initially thought it was possible that fast. It was that quick because the entire world responded that massively to a red line. Only honest news services reported all that.

One must learn from responsible news sources - not from extremist news services intentionally created to promote the party line.

Only honest new services, that will even publish details of their own mistakes, will honestly report the news.

Toad is watching.

When UT says the Post did poorly, tw says the Post did well.

When the Post agrees that it did poorly, tw says that UT did poorly :lol:

When the post made a mistake, it admits it. When will we find those Saddam WMDs? Nobody (including me) will answer that one. We might make a mistake.

We already did. Move the fuck on.

Why is your head stuck in your ass again? Do you again need help pulling it out?

Its you who pulls your head out of your ass every so often and regurgitates the same shit you've been eating since the last time. Its old, tired and boring ... its "You".

Classic extremist. Only knows how to disparage and insult. With nothing to contribute. It makes you presidential material.

:eyebrow:

Do you need help pulling your head out? Being so busy posting cheapshots, you forgot to answer.

I was working, some of us are still needed in the workforce.

Whatever else I discover this political cycle, it is good to know that, despite my lengthy absences from this forum, TW is still a complete twit. Love, bro. Twit on!

Ping.

A red line meant all such weapons were removed - by the entire world. We did what all great nations do. Accomplish something without using even one soldier. Because Obama drew a line, the entire world hopped to it.

Entire world also demanded that Russia verify those weapons were removed and never exist again. Russia promised. The world, led by Obama, successfully held Russia to that promise.

New chemical weapons were recently created and stored at bases occupied by Russians. Putin may be testing a mentally deficient president - as a chess player would and should. New WMDs were created probably in cooperation with the Russians. Putin knows Trump. And now knows Trump will spend massively to attack what is much less relevant.

We just spent $100million to destroy 6 to 20 jets. An irrelevant pin prick. Runways intact. Fuel depot untouched (Japanese made that mistake in Pearl Harbor). All buildings where bosses are and made decisions - untouched. Nothing was done to make that air base non-operational. WMDs and the people who made, stored, and deployed them - untouched and not even threatened. We did virtually nothing - if one ignores hype. If one thinks militarily or even politically.

Russia knew of and probably protected Syria's Sarin. Had we attacked those Sarin storage buildings, then Russia could not deny what is obvious and what they knew. We did not even attack the Sarin.

Onus once was on the world. Russia knew those weapons existed, located troops that protected those weapons, and may have helped implement their use. But the world no longer need bother. Actions were not first justified by diplomacy. World is no longer justified to demand and act on a useful solution. We tainted the waters. Only remaining solution is larger military action. It's called 'Wag the dog'.

And so we will waste more American power and growth on another decade of war. Eisenhower warned of this in his farewell address.

Putin is a chess player manipulating an emotional and deficient president. Asad knows he can use Sarin selectively without consequences. We spent $100million attacking trivial and irrelevant targets. We did not even attack known Sarin storage facilities.

Diplomacy, once used successfully, is now compromised. Short of war or blockade, we have few options unless we can get the entire world to act again. But that is unlikely due to an attack unjustified by any world body.

Obama solved the problem. This one subverted that and future solutions. Asad can now use Sarin again with few consequences. And Russia not longer need stop him. Russia can even supply him covertly - without consequences.

There have always been questions about Syria's adherence to the 2013 U.S. and Russia-brokered agreement. No one who ignores hype, thinks militarily or even politically, has taken the Assad regime at its word that it declared its entire chemical weapons stockpile. In May 2015, trace elements of sarin and the nerve agent VX were found at a facility that the Assad regime never declared, according to Reuters. Assad could have retained; and/or, reconstituted chemical weapons.

While production infrastructure was banned by the 2013 agreement, there was nothing in the agreement to eliminate the scientific infrastructure, the cadre of scientists and small labs that could be used to re-establish, even on a small basis, a CW program. Creating small batches of sarin can be accomplished in much smaller facilities than were previously destroyed. You don't need a lot of sarin to wreak horrible devastation and sarin can be created within a day if the ingredients and equipment are available.

The Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), which works in liaison with the UN, issued a statement Friday that reiterated its position from 2016, which was that it was "not able to resolve all identified gaps, inconsistencies and discrepancies in Syria's declaration and therefore could not fully verify that Syria had submitted a declaration that could be considered accurate" or that it was in compliance with the 2013 agreement.

Obama got suckered by the Russians and scurried the whole gullible world go along with him to preserve his (in)vain red line. Now Trump has to clean up after Obama's failure.
.
Pong.
.
sexobon: ∞ and beyond, tw: -1

Obama's Intel director also said in 2016 Senate report that Syria was not following the agreement. So it was always more of a pink line than a red line. A pink line was a better position than use of force in 2013. That is arguably still true now for 2013.

But when someone has violated your previous agreement, and was blatant about it, you don't go back and get another agreement. This was a test of the new Presidency. Hillary would have faced the same test, and would have answered it the same general way. It was necessary.

It would be funny/sad if Assad (or Assad's minion's) decision included the calculation that Trump and the Ruskies were superfriends and so they could do as they liked/needed.

I'm not often in favour of military action, and certainly not bombing, as a solution, but I honestly do not see what other option there was at this stage save for leaving the civilians of Syria to their awful fate.

There's been a lot of noise in the media about Obama having rolled back on his red line in 2013 and thereby giving Assad the impression he can get away with this kind of shit without any real come back. I don't buy that. I think Assad knew damn well he was on his last notice from the US under Obama - hence no chemical attacks until after the change in leader.

Like UT says, that approach can't be used twice. It's a one shot deal.

There's also a lot of noise in the media and international community that this was illegal and that the US should not have unilaterally chosen to act - but really, what other choice is there but for someone to act unilaterally?

If Russia stopped propping this war criminal up and assisting him in brutalising his own people, then there would be other options, like UN peacekeeping forces, and the enforcement of no-fly zones. None of that is possible as long as the UN is being crippled into inaction by the Russian veto.

For all the mockery, and I daresay there will be more of that to come, in this test, Trump has managed to project himself as decisive and a force to be reckoned with whilst simultaneously demonstrating independence from Russian influence. As political tests go for new leaders, I'd say he did pretty well.

Red line was blunt and obvious. The entire world averted what would have resulted in American military operations. Best presidents need not invent or create wars. And do not use military until it is a last option. Weak ones, without any patience or grasp, are quick to use their ultmate weapons while harming an American economy and its people.

Onus was on the Russians. Obama's strategy was comprehensive and effective. Russians promised the entire world that Sarin would be completely removed. If they lied, then good. That lie will be exposed - at major expense to Russians. But a dumb president let Russians off the hook - maybe as Putin (or worse Asad) carefully strategized. Trump was played.

Russian lies no longer matter; are now irrelevant. Trump wasted $100million by attacking trivial items. Had we attacked those Sarin facilities, Russians not only would be embarrassed. They might have to explain Russians soldiers harmed by Sarin that THEY were responsible for not existing.

The most important fact in all this - Russia was responsible for collecting all Sarin and Sarin manufacturing equipment. Russians and only Russians were responsible for confirmed no more Sarin was created. They promised the entire world.

Trump does not have balls (or grasp) to blame the actual problem. For someone so impudent and egotistical, he certainly did not solve problems by negotiating a deal or by using military to a conclusive solution.

Trump even ignored the fundamental problem here. The Russians did not keep their promise. And are apparently playing Trump in a chess game that Trump does not even know exists. Maybe too many in the Trump administration fear to confront Russians? Since Putin may have so many Trump people in his pocket. Maybe top Trump officials can be blackmailed by Putin.

You say that like it is possible to shame Putin on the world stage - I don't think that's how it would have gone down even if they had managed to get absolute and incontrovertible proof that Assad retained stockpiles of Sarin.

It was never a one shot deal. Russians promised the entire world that all Sarin was collected and that Sarin ingredients would not be imported. Had Trump been smart, he would have railed at Russian lies. He didn't. He did not even blame the Russians - as if Russia was Great Britain. If Trump was truly the negotiator he claims to be, then his best arguments were powerful. An entire honest world would have to agree - Russia lied.

But those agruements cannot be used. Trump destroyed his own powerful position.

Furthermore, had Trump understood strategic military concepts, then he would have done what Clinton so successfully did in Iraq. If using military action, Trump should have attacked all Sarin facilities and warehouses. Since those are in bases even protected by Russian presence. Russians could not deny a massive Sarin cleanup and Sarin victims - of a chemical that Russia said did not exist.

Trump had two powerful options. He destroyed both by wasting $100 million on useless and irrelevant targets. Even that option is now gone - cannot be used effectively again. Since the Russians now have every right to (and will) install best protection from Cruise missiles. And will not monitor (and maybe harass) American warships. They now have the right to do so - because Trump screwed up.

Of course it is. Putin is playing a shrew chess game. He is playing from a position of weakness. And yet, well, he may even have material to blackmail top Trump officials. Its hard to believe Trump would have attack such trivial targets had he been listening to, well, Trump knows he is smarter than the generals - and everyone else.

Never assume the military option is an only option or is a good one. During the Cuban missile crisis, we know those who thought that way almost resulted in none of us existing today. Best solution of even this tiny event is shrewd diplomacy. Quiet talk with a big stick. A big stick that is only used when talk is not yet effective. Plenty of options existed - to even implement a second red line over the first one. Even that option no longer exists.

In these chess moves, Putin clearly won only because Trump used a worst possible strategy.

Hindsight is 20/20... except for tw. :smack:

Obviously an interview with some low level former advisor who has no grasp of military concepts is not what Obama and his former senior staff think. Looking for something to support a naive belief is how extremists protect their beliefs.

We know this. Military is a last option; used when all other options are no longer available or have failed. Military must be implemented at real targets. Not irrelevant airplanes. Responsible use of military power would have taken out all known and suspected Sarin sites. And targeted top people responsible for its use. A responsible military response attacked Syria's presidential palace and Asad. If that is unacceptable, then a military response is unacceptable.

Idiots spent massively ($100million) to destroy some mostly old and easily replaced airplanes. A massive military response did virtually nothing useful. And destroyed most every other viable option.

When Reagan attacked Libya, did he only destroy some airplanes that might have threatened an aircraft carrier? Of course not. That would be counter-productive and only made things worse. Reagan went right after everything including the reason for confrontation - including Gaddafi and his tents. Reagan attacked everything relevant to the problem.

Only fools want big bombs to solve anything. All saw that bogus reasoning even in Vietnam. What happened? Only bad things. Actual problem was completely ignored. Problem was not targeted by a massive military response.

An attack on Syria did little useful. And destroyed everything accomplished by Obama's red line. Only reason to believe that military attack did something useful: emotions. Knowledge says otherwise.

No person cites a single fact that says a $100 million attack solved anything. That makes the stupidity of that attack obvious. What was accomplished. Even that airbase was operational in less than 24 hours. Nothing was accomplished. Even Sarin was untouched and ready for deployment.

Obama was losing face after Assad thumbed his nose at him. Obama wanted to use military force; but, didn't have the intestinal fortitude to do it alone. He was afraid of Putin. Putin capitalized in Obama's weakness by offering Obama a political out. Obama would get to remove most of the CW so ISIS couldn't get trhem (also in Putin's interest) and in return Obama would look the other way when the evidence indicated that Assad had kept some secured for himself. The deal maker was that Assad wouldn't use them on Obama's watch.

Trump demonstrated that he's not going to be Putin's lackey like Obama was, by using the military option. All he needs to do for now is show them that he's willing and able to reach out and touch someone if CW are used again. The Russians can't stop it from happening. They can only retaliate which would be of no use to a defeated Assad. The US can do this in increments to have the least intervention effect on the civil war and give Russia the least provocation to retaliate. It's called strategy; but, has nothing in common with what armchair quarterbacks, who liken international relations to playing a game, call strategy. :rolleyes:

sexobon: ∞ and beyond, tw: -2

It has our allies nodding, China reevaluating, and North Korea shaking.

We will be greeted as liberators. /not likely

The war-mongering press loves it, it gives North Korea an upset stomach, it doesn't actually kill any Russians (which honestly is better than Hillary would have done), it further muddies the water for anyone trying to understand Trump (hint: he loves muddy water), if it stops here no major harm done unless you're looking at a debt clock,

If this were part of a game designed to extricate us from the bottomless pit of international conflict we might have something here but at this point the machine runs itself, a couple publicly reluctant Presidents won't stop it.

Need we reargue lies that justified a bogus Mission Accomplished war? 'Big dics' used same bogus reasoning back then. Because emotion - not logic - justified their reasoning. It is called 'Wag the Dog'.

Military action requires a 'smoking gun'. If attacks were justified - if a smoking gun existed - then America attacked the presidential palace and Asad. And attacked all Sarin facilities. If people responsible for Sarin are not targeted (are not the problem), then a smoking gun does not exist. No smoking gun means military action was not yet justified.

No smoking gun is why irrelevant targets were attacked with very expensive weapons. Scary are so many enthralled by use of big guns; therefore do not see severe consequences.

We are now jumping into another hole of quicksand. Problem was 100% on countries in that region. Why did Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Gulf States, Jordan, Egypt and Israel do nothing - not even complain? Why did America not go after them for being irresponsible and remaining silent? They - not America - are responsible for their region.

Many Americans refuse to learn lessons from VietNam, 200 dead Marines in Lebanon, and Mission Accomplished. Too many Americans only understand 'big dic' thinking. So many never understand: a 'smoking gun' must first exist.

♫ RUS, SIA, makes you have a rotten day.

Israel did their part 10 years ago kemosabe, and it was bigtime; and given how events transpired, I think they did not just themselves, but the whole world, a huge favor. No smoking gun required.

People have been convicted of violent crimes, including murder, even when no weapon has been recovered. No smoking gun is required when the implications of circumstantial evidence are beyond a reasonable doubt. This is how the real world works. Anyone who would say a smoking gun is required before taking military action is not grounded in reality.

Smoking gun obviously existed - but was unknown to us all because a responsible press (ABC, NBC, CBS, NY Times, etc) did not have the story until after the fact

Israel did not waste time or money on trucks or planes delivering construction supplies. They did not waste money attacking corn fields to prove to Asad that they could.

Israel and Syria were still at war. Israel's attack was just one of many - and neither difficult nor challenging.

Israel asked a mental midget president (George Jr) to do it. But Cheney's puppet had subverted the US military on a useless war in Iraq, then recreated that war, while turning support from Iran against us, while all but surrendering to the Taliban, and then going back to fight that war all over again. America no long had necessary strength nor desire to be involved. Meanwhile, George Jr, et al had also created what was beginning to look like another Great Depression. In part because almost $3 trillion had been wasted only on Iraq - with zero success.

Part of that Syria problem - and this was noted in the Cellar repeatedly in the early 2000s - is traceable to Americans who so foolishly advocated and loved a $3 trillion war. And the deaths of 5000 American servicemen because a braggart was a threat to no one. America was already deeply involved with wars that would not exist had responsible (educated) leaders existed in Washington.

Israel took care of their problem when fatigue and a shortage of military capacity keep Americans from doing another stupid attack. Fatigue to keep Americans from doing something stupid?

Israeli did not act stupid - as America has with Sarin. Israelis took out a containment building; not irrelevant targets. Problem and the people who created a Sarin problem remain untouched and unthreatened. Infighting in The Donald's administration (resulting in a completely NSA shakeup) may also explain that stupid military decision.

Israelis did not stupidly attack trucks and planes. When using military force, the actual problem must be completely taken out. America did nothing to address a Sarin problem.

Sarin is no longer Israel, Saudi Arabia, Gulf States, Turkey, Jordan, Iraq, or Lebanon's problem. It is now 100% America's problem. We simply jumped into more Middle East quicksand. Thanks to another president who is all about himself - not about America.

Reminds me of Nixon who massacred tens of thousands of Americans in a war he knew we would never win - to protect his legacy. Nixon did not want to be the first American president to lose a war. Soldiers apparently were expendable to Nixon, George Jr, and now Trump.

I'm sorry, I was using your previous definition of "smoking gun", you know, the definition you've used for the last twenty-five years.