TruthArchive.ai - Tweets Saved By @dbenner83

RandPaul
Posted - February 20, 2025 at 12:04 AM
Saved - February 22, 2025 at 3:09 AM
reSee.it AI Summary
Rand Paul expressed his initial reluctance to endorse Donald Trump during the election but now praises Trump's cabinet and policies, particularly his stance on Ukraine and the DOGE initiative. Paul acknowledges his previous hesitation and offers his enthusiastic endorsement, despite still opposing tariffs. He emphasizes the courage and tenacity he sees in Trump. In response, another participant noted that the DOGE initiative is causing a significant reaction among certain groups, describing it as a positive development.

@RandPaul - Rand Paul

A few people may have noticed that I resisted an enthusiastic endorsement of Donald Trump during the election. But now, I’m amazed by the Trump cabinet (many of whom I would have picked). I love his message to the Ukrainian warmongers, and along with his DOGE initiative shows I was wrong to withhold my endorsement. So today, admittedly a little tardy, I give Donald Trump my enthusiastic endorsement! (Too little too late some will say, but, you know, it is sincere, there is that.) Don’t expect this endorsement to be fawning. I still think tariffs are a terrible idea, but Dios Mio, what courage, what tenacity. Go @realDonaldTrump Go!

@dbenner83 - Dave Benner, Nemesis of Neocons

@RandPaul DOGE is driving all the right people mad, and it really is a sight to behold. A huge white pill. https://t.co/HtSVsLGgtC

Video Transcript AI Summary
The reaction to the idea of opening the books on government spending is telling. People are freaking out about the possibility of seeing where our money is going and maybe even rolling back some of it. It's enjoyable to watch them spaz out over it and see what they're reduced to arguing. The US Federal Government spends more money and has more debt than anyone else in history. The moment someone suggests modest cuts or opening the books, everyone loses their mind, claiming it's the end of the world. They act like opening the books or cutting spending is corruption. Think about how backward that is.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: The reaction to Doge in many ways says it all. Like, the fact that everyone's freaking out so much about the fact that what, like, these books might be opened? We might actually be able to look and see what you're spending our money on, and then maybe even roll some of it back. And you see the freak out from people. I really enjoy watching the people spaz out over it. Because just look at, like, what they're reduced to arguing. But if you just really zoom out, and think about Doge and the reaction to it, The US Federal Government, biggest organization in the history of the world, spends more money than anybody else in the history of the world, and has accumulated more debt than any other organization in the history of the world. And as soon as anybody even suggests modest cuts or even just opening the books, everyone in this town loses their freaking mind and says it's gonna be the end of the world. And that in fact, this is the corruption. The corruption is opening the books. The corruption is cutting any government spending. Think about for a second how fucking ass backward that is.
dbenner83
Posted - February 10, 2025 at 6:04 PM
Saved - February 10, 2025 at 7:03 PM

@dbenner83 - Dave Benner, Nemesis of Neocons

@TuckerCarlson The cold hard truth is that the US and NATO provoked hostilities with Russia for decades. All US aid must be ended regardless of any peace deal, and the US must withdraw from NATO immediately. https://t.co/cgbETunt4h

Video Transcript AI Summary
The Ukraine conflict didn't begin with Putin's 2022 invasion; it's rooted in broken promises dating back to 1990. The US, despite assurances to Gorbachev that NATO wouldn't expand eastward, violated this agreement, starting with NATO expansion in 1999. This was followed by NATO bombing of Serbia in 1999 and the placement of missile systems in Eastern Europe, viewed by Russia as a direct threat. Further US involvement included the 2004 and 2014 Ukrainian regime changes. Despite Putin's initial pro-Western stance and his 2021 proposal for a security agreement barring NATO expansion, the West's continued support for Ukraine escalated the conflict. The narrative of Putin as a madman is a misrepresentation; this is a complex geopolitical game with potentially devastating consequences.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Let me just explain in two minutes the Ukraine war. This is not an attack by Putin on Ukraine in the way that we are told every day. This started in 1990. James Baker the third, our secretary of state, said to Mikhail Gorbachev, NATO will not move one inch eastward if you agree to German unification. The US then cheated on this already starting in 1994 when Clinton signed off on a plan to expand NATO all the way to Ukraine. This is when the so called neocons took power. The expansion of NATO started in 1999 with Poland, Hungary, and Czech Republic. Then, The US, led the bombing of Serbia in 1999. That was a use of NATO to bomb a European capital, Belgrade, Seventy Eight Straight Days to break the country apart. The Russians didn't like that very much. But even Putin started out pro European, pro American, actually, asked maybe we should join NATO, when there was still the idea of some kind of mutually respectful relationship. 09/11 came, then came, Afghanistan, and the Russian said, yeah. We'll support you. We understand to root out terror. In 02/2002, the United States unilaterally walked out of the anti ballistic missile treaty. What it did was trigger The US putting in missile systems in Eastern Europe that Russia views as a dire direct threat to national security by making possible a decapitation strike of missiles that are a few minutes away from Moscow. In February, 04/05, we engaged in a soft regime change operation in Ukraine, the so called first color revolution. But in 02/2009, Yanukovych won the election, and he became president in 02/2010 on the basis of neutrality for Ukraine. So in 02/22/2014, the United States participated actively in the overthrow of Yanukovych. They intercepted a really ugly call between Victoria Nuland and The US Ambassador to Ukraine, Jeffrey Piatt, who's a senior state department official till today. And they talked about regime change. So they made the new government. The US then said, okay. Now NATO's really gonna enlarge, and Putin kept saying stop. You promised no NATO enlargement. Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Bulgaria, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Seven more countries in the not one inch eastward. On 12/15/2021, Putin put on the table a draft Russia US security agreement. The basis of it is no NATO enlargement. The special military operation started, and five days later, Zelensky says, okay. Okay. Neutrality. And then The United States and Britain said, no way. You guys fight on. We got your back. We don't have your front. You're all gonna die, but we got your back. That's six hundred thousand deaths now of Ukrainians since Boris Johnson flew to Kyiv to tell them to be brave. Absolutely ghastly. We have to understand we're not dealing with, as we're told every day, with this madman like Hitler. This is complete bogus fake history that is a purely PR narrative of the US government. We're playing games here. So God forbid a nuclear power comes at us. I don't know what's gonna happen, but we came at them.
dbenner83
Posted - September 13, 2024 at 5:42 PM
Saved - November 12, 2024 at 8:21 AM
reSee.it AI Summary
NATO's expansion and its implications have sparked significant debate. Notable figures from the Cold War era, including George Kennan and Robert McNamara, warned that expanding NATO would provoke Russian nationalism and destabilize European security. Jack Matlock described it as a potential strategic blunder, while William Perry attributed early US missteps to this expansion. Current CIA Director William Burns echoed concerns about Russia perceiving further NATO enlargement as a military threat. The consequences of ignoring these warnings have led to escalating tensions and substantial costs for the US.

@dbenner83 - Dave Benner, Nemesis of Neocons

NATO, Ukraine, and the revival of Cold War tensions with Russia have been hot topics recently, but did you know that prominent diplomats and the coldest US Cold Warriors warned against expanding NATO before the first wave of expansion in the 1990s? 🧵 https://t.co/xvDv5WmPXh

@dbenner83 - Dave Benner, Nemesis of Neocons

George Kennan, architect of the policy of Soviet containment: "Expanding NATO would be the most fateful error of American policy in the entire post-Cold War era. Such a decision may be expected to inflame the nationalistic, anti-Western and militaristic tendencies in Russian opinion; to have an adverse effect on the development of Russian democracy; to restore the atmosphere of the cold war to East-West relations, and to impel Russian foreign policy in directions decidedly not to our liking..." - "A Fateful Error," Op-Ed in the New York Times, February 5, 1997

@dbenner83 - Dave Benner, Nemesis of Neocons

Robert McNamara, former Secretary of Defense: "The current US-led effort to expand NATO [and] the focus of the recent Helsinki and Paris Summits is a policy error of historic proportions...We believe that NATO expansion will decrease allied security and unsettle European stability” and gave “reasons” in support of their argument." - Letter from June 26, 1997

@dbenner83 - Dave Benner, Nemesis of Neocons

Jack Matlock, Ambassador to Russia: "I consider the administration's recommendation to take new members into NATO at this time misguided. If it should be approved by the United States Senate, it may well go down in history as the most profound strategic blunder made since the end of the Cold War. Far from improving the security of the United States, its Allies, and the nations that wish to enter the Alliance, it could well encourage a chain of events that could produce the most serious security threat to this nation since the Soviet Union collapsed.” - Testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, 1997

@dbenner83 - Dave Benner, Nemesis of Neocons

William Perry, former Secretary of Defense: "In the early years I have to say that the United States deserves much of the blame. Our first action that really set us off in a bad direction was when NATO started to expand, bringing in Eastern European nations, some of them bordering Russia." - Interview with the Guardian, 2016

@dbenner83 - Dave Benner, Nemesis of Neocons

James Baker, former US Secretary of State: "We understand the need for assurances to the countries in the East. If we maintain a presence in Germany that is part of NATO, there would be no extension of NATO's jurisdiction for forces of NATO one inch to the east." - Memorandum of Conversation with Mikhail Gorbachev, February 9, 1990

@dbenner83 - Dave Benner, Nemesis of Neocons

Current CIA Director William Burns, Former US Ambassador to Russia: "Foreign Minister Lavrov and other senior officials have reiterated strong opposition, stressing that Russia would view further eastward expansion as a potential military threat. NATO enlargement, particularly to Ukraine, remains "an emotional and neuralgic" issue for Russia." -Declassified WikiLeaks Cable from February 1, 2008

@dbenner83 - Dave Benner, Nemesis of Neocons

Even as the corporate media pretends otherwise, NATO's expansion has had dire consequences for the US. If the advice of the Cold War's victors had been heeded, the US would not be risking nuclear war with Russia, spending over $170 billion on Ukraine, inflating the dollar to finance it, prolonging the slaughter of mass conscripts on both sides of the conflict, and intensifying anti-US hostilities across the globe. To call this a strategic blunder would be an understatement. It's a catastrophe of historical proportions. Pray and hope for peace, but tell the truth about it all.

dbenner83
Posted - September 14, 2024 at 4:21 PM
Saved - November 12, 2024 at 8:21 AM

@dbenner83 - Dave Benner, Nemesis of Neocons

"Putin sent a draft treaty that he wanted NATO to sign to promise no more NATO enlargement, and that was a precondition for him not to invade Ukraine." Said by a Russian agent, right? Nope, that was NATO General Secretary Jens Stoltenberg. https://t.co/bcJsDjK0qS

Video Transcript AI Summary
In autumn 2021, President Putin proposed a treaty demanding NATO promise not to expand further, which he claimed was a precondition to avoid invading Ukraine. NATO rejected this proposal, which included removing military infrastructure from Eastern European member states. Instead of preventing NATO's expansion, Putin's actions led to an increased NATO presence in Eastern Europe.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: President Putin declared in the autumn of 2021 and actually sent a draft treaty that they wanted NATO to sign to promise no more NATO enlargement. That was what what he sent us. And that was that that was a precondition for not invade, Ukraine. Of course, we didn't sign that. The opposite happened. He wanted us to sign a promise never to enlarge NATO. He wanted us to remove our military infrastructure in in all allies that have joined NATO since 1997, meaning half of NATO, all the Central and Eastern Europe. We should remove NATO from from that of of our alliance, introducing some kind of E and B or second class membership. We rejected that. So he went to war to prevent, NATO, more NATO close to its borders. He has he he has got the exact opposite. He has got more NATO presence in the eastern part of the alliance.
dbenner83
Posted - November 12, 2024 at 3:24 AM
Saved - November 12, 2024 at 7:59 AM

@dbenner83 - Dave Benner, Nemesis of Neocons

@elonmusk Robert F. Kennedy also did an excellent job of summarizing the lead-up to the war in Ukraine here as well: https://t.co/kd0sJ5Bj48

Video Transcript AI Summary
Putin claims he wants to negotiate the war, but Zelensky refuses. Historically, Russia has faced invasions through Ukraine, including by Hitler. After the Soviet Union's fall, Gorbachev allowed German reunification under NATO, seeking a promise not to expand NATO eastward. However, NATO expanded into 14 countries, and the U.S. withdrew from nuclear treaties, placing missiles near Russia. In 2014, the U.S. supported a government change in Ukraine, prompting Russia's annexation of Crimea. Zelensky, initially promising peace, faced pressure from the U.S. and couldn't sign the Minsk Accords. Russia's limited military presence aimed to negotiate, but U.S. intervention led to the treaty's collapse. This has resulted in significant casualties, with the perception of the U.S. as the aggressor growing globally.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: You know, Putin every day says, I wanna settle the war. Let's negotiate. And Zelensky has said, we're not gonna negotiate. But Zelensky didn't start that way. I don't wanna, you know, delay the history, but Russia was invaded 3 times through Ukraine. The last time Hitler killed 1 out of every 7 Russians. They don't want to have Ukraine join NATO. So when the wall came down in the Soviet Union Europe, Gorbachev destroyed himself politically by doing something that was very, very courageous. He went to Bush, and he said, I'm going to allow you to reunify Germany under a NATO army. I'm gonna remove 450,000 Soviet troops, but I want your commitment. After that, you will not move NATO 1 inch to the east, and we've solemnly swore we wouldn't do it. Well, then in 97, Brzezinski was the first of the neocons said, we're gonna move NATO a 1000 miles to the east and take 15 countries into it and surround the Soviet Union. So then we not only move it into 14 new nations, but we unilaterally walk away from our 2 nuclear weapons treaties with the Russians. And we put Aegis missile systems in Romania and Poland 12 minutes from Moscow. When Russians did that to Cuba in 62, we came this close to nuclear war until they removed them. So the Russians don't want nukes 400 miles from Moscow. We then overthrow the Ukraine government. In 2014, they're elected government and put in a western sympathetic government. Russia then has to go into Crimea because they have a port. It's their only warm water port, and they know the new government that we just installed is gonna invite the US Navy into their port. So Russia then went into Crimea without firing a shot because the people of Crimea are Russian. Then the new Ukrainian government we installed started killing ethnic Russians in and they voted to leave and join Russia. Putin said, I don't want them. Let's give them protection and give them semi autonomy and make an agreement to keep NATO out of Ukraine. That treaty was written by Germany, France, Russia, and England, the Minsk Accords. And the Ukrainian parliament, which is controlled by ultra writers, and that's a nice way of of talking about them, refused to sign it. Zelensky runs in 2019. He's an actor. Why did he get elected with 70% of vote? Because he promised to sign the Minsk Accords. He promised peace. He gets in there, and he pivots. Nobody can explain why, but we know why. Because he was threatened with death by arthritis in his government and a withdrawal of support by the United States by Victoria Newan, who's the leading the economy state department. We told him he could not sign it. So then the Russians go in. They don't send a big army. They only send 40,000 people. It's a nation of 44,000,000 people. They clearly do not intend to conquer Ukraine, but they want us back at the negotiating table. We won't allow Zelensky to go back. So he goes to Israel and Turkey and says, will you please help me negotiate a treaty? The Russians just want I guarantee that Ukraine won't join NATO. Zelensky signs the treaty. Putin's people sign the treaty, and Putin starts withdrawing the Russian troops in good faith. And what happens, Joe Biden sends Boris Johnson, the British prime minister, over to Ukraine in April and forces him to tear up the treaty. And since then, 450,000 kids have died who none of them should have died. For every one Russian that dies, 5 to 8 Ukrainians died, they don't have any men left. You know, we're giving them all these weapons, but they don't have men left. It's a catastrophe, and we look kinda like the aggressor. That's the way the rest of the world sees us.
dbenner83
Posted - November 12, 2024 at 12:13 AM
Saved - November 12, 2024 at 7:57 AM
reSee.it AI Summary
I watched Jeffrey Sachs explain how the US and NATO provoked the war in Ukraine, tracing back to promises made in 1990 that NATO wouldn’t expand eastward. He detailed the NATO expansion starting in 1999, US actions in Serbia, and the regime change in Ukraine in 2014. He emphasized that the narrative of Putin as a madman is misleading. Supporting evidence includes documents confirming the US's commitment against NATO expansion, which has been overlooked by the media. Even NATO's own leaders acknowledged Russia's concerns about NATO's eastward movement.

@dbenner83 - Dave Benner, Nemesis of Neocons

🚨 WATCH: Jeffrey Sachs tells the cold, hard truth how the US and NATO provoked war in Ukraine in 4 minutes "It started in 1990, when US Secretary of State James Baker said to Mikhail Gorbachev that NATO would not move one inch eastward... The US then cheated on this, starting in 1994, when Clinton signed off on a plan to expand NATO all the way to Ukraine. The expansion of NATO started in 1999 with Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic. Then, the US led the bombing of Serbia in 1999. That was the use of NATO to bomb a European capital for 78 straight days to break the country apart. The Russians didn't like that very much, but even Putin started out pro-European and pro-American. He considered whether to join NATO when there was still the idea of some kind of mutually respectful relationship. In 2002, the US unilaterally walked out of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. What it did was trigger the US putting in missile systems in Eastern Europe that Russia views as a dire, direct threat to national security, by making possible a decapitation strike of missiles that are a few minutes away from Moscow. In 2004-2005, the US engaged in a soft regime change in Ukraine, the so-called First Color Revolution. In 2009, Yanukovych won the election and became president in 2010 on the basis of neutrality in Ukraine. In 2014, the US participated actively in the overthrow of Yanukovych. Nuland and the US Ambassador to Ukraine...talked about regime change. So they made the new government! The US then said 'now NATO's really going to enlarge.' Putin kept saying 'stop, you promised no NATO enlargement.' Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Bulgaria, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, seven more countries in the 'not one inch eastward.' In 2021, Putin put on the table a draft Russian-US security agreement. The basis of it was no NATO enlargement. The special military operations started, and five days later Zelenskyy said 'okay, okay, neutrality.' And then the US and Britain said no way, you guys fight on. We've got your back. That's 600,000 deaths now of Ukrainians since Boris Johnson flew to Kyiv to tell them to be brave. Absolutely ghastly. We're not dealing with, as we're told every day, this madman like Hitler. This is complete bogus, fake history that is a purely PR narrative of the US government. We're playing games here. So God forbid a nuclear power comes at us. I don't know what's going to happen, but we came at them."

Video Transcript AI Summary
The Ukraine war's roots trace back to 1990, when the U.S. promised not to expand NATO eastward in exchange for German unification. However, NATO began expanding in 1999, leading to tensions with Russia. Initially, Putin was open to cooperation, but U.S. actions, including withdrawing from the anti-ballistic missile treaty and supporting regime change in Ukraine, heightened distrust. In 2014, the U.S. played a role in the overthrow of Ukraine's elected president, Yanukovych, despite Russian objections to NATO's expansion. In December 2021, Putin proposed a security agreement to halt NATO enlargement, but the U.S. rejected it. The conflict escalated, resulting in significant Ukrainian casualties, while the narrative of a madman in Putin is seen as misleading. The situation reflects a complex geopolitical struggle rather than a simple attack.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Let me just explain in 2 minutes the Ukraine war. This is not an attack by Putin on Ukraine in the way that we are told every day. This started in 1990. James Baker the 3rd, our secretary of state, said to Mikhail Gorbachev, NATO will not move 1 inch eastward if you agree to German unification. The US then cheated on this already starting in 1994 when Clinton signed off on a plan to expand NATO all the way to Ukraine. This is when the so called neocons took power. The expansion of NATO started in 1999 with Poland, Hungary, and Czech Republic. Then, the US, led the bombing of Serbia in 1999. That was a use of NATO to bomb a European capital, Belgrade, 78 straight days to break the country apart. The Russians didn't like that very much. But even Putin started out pro European, pro American, actually asked maybe we should join NATO, when there was still the idea of some kind of mutually respectful relationship. 911 came, then came, Afghanistan, and the Russians said, yeah. We'll support you. We understand to root out terror. In 2002, the United States unilaterally walked out of the anti ballistic missile treaty. What it did was trigger the US putting in missile systems in Eastern Europe that Russia views as a dire direct threat to national security by making possible a decapitation strike of missiles that are a few minutes away from Moscow. In 2,004, 5, we engaged in a soft regime change operation in Ukraine, the so called first color revolution. But in 2009, Yanukovych won the election, and he became president. And in 2010, on the basis of neutrality for Ukraine. So in February 22, 2014, the United States participated actively in the overthrow of Yanukovych. They intercepted a really ugly call between Victoria Nuland and the US ambassador to Ukraine, Jeffrey Piatt, who's a senior state department official till today. And they talked about regime change. So they made the new government. The US then said, okay. Now NATO's really gonna enlarge, and Putin kept saying, stop. You promised no NATO enlargement. Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Bulgaria, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, 7 more countries in the not 1 inch eastward. On December 15, 2021, Putin put on the table a draft Russia US security agreement. The basis of it is no NATO enlargement. The special military operation started, and 5 days later, Zelensky says, okay. Okay. Neutrality. And then the United States and Britain said, no way. You guys fight on. We got your back. We don't have your front. You're all gonna die, but we got your back. That's 600,000 deaths now of Ukrainians since Boris Johnson flew to Kyiv to tell them to be brave. Absolutely ghastly. We have to understand we're not dealing with, as we're told every day, with this madman like Hitler. This is complete bogus fake history that is a purely PR narrative of the US government. We're playing games here. So God forbid, a nuclear power comes at us. I don't know what's gonna happen, but we came at them.

@dbenner83 - Dave Benner, Nemesis of Neocons

Neocons and NATO shills insist that Gorbachev denied that the US promised not to move NATO eastward, and he did...at times. At other points, he said the opposite, like in this quote. Thankfully, we still have the minutes from the conference to prove it was indeed promised. https://t.co/hUQEEsil2d

Video Transcript AI Summary
Gorbachev has made various statements that seem contradictory. While he has quoted promises made by Americans regarding NATO not expanding beyond Germany after the Cold War, the reality is that many Central and Eastern European countries are now NATO members. This raises questions about trustworthiness. Gorbachev's comments suggest he acknowledges these broken promises, though he may not directly reference Baker’s quote. Ultimately, there are documented minutes from meetings that clarify what was discussed, providing a clearer understanding of the commitments made at that time.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Okay. So here's listen. I get your point there, and particularly the Gorby quote I've heard a lot. There's lots of other, quotes from Gorbachev. So here's another one. Okay? Yeah. And this is it just flies in the face of that one. Right? So clearly, he's on both sides, and I'll send you the link if you want. No. There is there are there are other Gorbachev. Go ahead. The Americans promised that NATO would wouldn't move beyond the boundaries of Germany after the Cold War, but now half of Central and Eastern Europe are members. So what happened to their promises? It shows they cannot be trusted. So Gorbachev the Gorbachev may not be referring exactly to that Baker quote. Well, okay. But he's making the point that this was promised. Okay. So Now he's so he's kind of contradicted himself in several different areas. The fact is that you can look at what he said here or look at what he said there. But this is Or you can read the minutes of the meeting, which we have. This So we know exactly what we said. Might be for you.

@dbenner83 - Dave Benner, Nemesis of Neocons

Thanks to a document that resurfaced in 2022, we know that the German diplomat made clear that the Western alliance promised not to move NATO beyond the Elbe and excluded "Poland and the others." This destroys the claim that Baker's comments pertained only to Germany. https://t.co/Hw8rOKHBzq

@dbenner83 - Dave Benner, Nemesis of Neocons

Baker's promise not to move NATO "one inch eastward" is a documented fact in the public record. Source: George H.W. Bush Presidential Library, NSC Scowcroft Files, Box 91128, Folder “Gorbachev (Dobrynin) Sensitive.” https://t.co/8NP3ZJOIOs

@dbenner83 - Dave Benner, Nemesis of Neocons

This fact was widely acknowledged until recent years, when the corporate media swept it under the rug or called it "disinformation." There was a time when the top diplomats and the coldest Cold Warriors in the US warned against NATO expansion. https://t.co/0wxFeS553n

@dbenner83 - Dave Benner, Nemesis of Neocons

NATO, Ukraine, and the revival of Cold War tensions with Russia have been hot topics recently, but did you know that prominent diplomats and the coldest US Cold Warriors warned against expanding NATO before the first wave of expansion in the 1990s? 🧵 https://t.co/xvDv5WmPXh

@dbenner83 - Dave Benner, Nemesis of Neocons

Even the head of NATO at the time, Jens Stoltenberg, admitted that Putin drew up a draft treaty insisting on no NATO expansion eastward. Then he bragged about how NATO defied his wishes. Basically what they call us "conspiracy theorists" for saying. https://t.co/nAcZLAVNQi

@dbenner83 - Dave Benner, Nemesis of Neocons

"Putin sent a draft treaty that he wanted NATO to sign to promise no more NATO enlargement, and that was a precondition for him not to invade Ukraine." Said by a Russian agent, right? Nope, that was NATO General Secretary Jens Stoltenberg. https://t.co/bcJsDjK0qS

Video Transcript AI Summary
In autumn 2021, President Putin proposed a draft treaty demanding NATO promise not to expand further and to withdraw military infrastructure from Eastern European member states. This was presented as a condition to avoid invading Ukraine. NATO rejected these demands, leading to increased military presence in Eastern Europe instead. Ultimately, Putin's actions resulted in the opposite of his intentions, with NATO expanding closer to Russia's borders.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: President Putin declared in the autumn of 2021 and actually sent a draft treaty that they wanted NATO to sign to promise no more NATO enlargement. That was what what he sent us. And that was that that was a precondition for not invade, Ukraine. Of course, we didn't sign that. The opposite happened. He wanted us to sign a promise never to enlarge NATO. He wanted us to remove our military infrastructure in in all allies that have joined NATO since 1997, meaning half of NATO, all the Central and Eastern Europe. We should remove NATO from from that of of our alliance, introducing some kind of E and B or second class membership. We rejected that. So he went to war to prevent, NATO, more NATO close to its borders. He has he he has got the exact opposite. He has got more NATO presence in the eastern part of the alliance.
dbenner83
Posted - November 12, 2024 at 3:53 AM
Saved - November 12, 2024 at 4:03 AM

@dbenner83 - Dave Benner, Nemesis of Neocons

Baker's promise not to move NATO "one inch eastward" is a documented fact in the public record. Source: George H.W. Bush Presidential Library, NSC Scowcroft Files, Box 91128, Folder “Gorbachev (Dobrynin) Sensitive.” https://t.co/8NP3ZJOIOs

dbenner83
Posted - September 19, 2024 at 2:55 AM
Saved - September 20, 2024 at 3:23 AM

@dbenner83 - Dave Benner, Nemesis of Neocons

@RobertKennedyJr Snowden had it right long ago. We don't need a governmental referee to counter speech we don't like. We just need more speech. https://t.co/s81yTFZ4fE

Video Transcript AI Summary
The problem of fake news is not solved by a referee, but by participants helping each other point out what is fake and true. The answer to bad speech is not censorship, but more speech. Critical thinking matters more than ever, given that lies seem to be getting very popular.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: The problem of fake news isn't solved by hoping for a referee, but rather because we, as participants, we, as citizens, we, as users of these services, help each other. We talk and we share and we point out what is fake. We point out what is true. The answer to bad speech is not censorship. The answer to bad speech is more speech. We have to exercise and spread the idea that critical thinking matters now more than ever given the fact that lies seem to be getting very popular.
dbenner83
Posted - February 3, 2024 at 11:30 PM
Saved - February 4, 2024 at 12:38 PM

@dbenner83 - Dave Benner, Nemesis of Neocons

@KimDotcom If people saw this clip of NATO's General Secretary admitting that they deliberately provoked Putin, it would blow their minds. https://t.co/8BpiDTgccC

Video Transcript AI Summary
In autumn 2021, President Putin sent a draft treaty to NATO, requesting a promise to not enlarge the alliance and remove military infrastructure from Central and Eastern Europe. NATO rejected these conditions, leading to Russia's invasion of Ukraine. As a result, NATO has increased its presence in the eastern part of the alliance.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: President Putin declared in the autumn of 2021 and actually sent a draft treaty that they wanted NATO to sign to promise no more NATO enlargement. That was what what he sent us. And that was that that was a precondition for not invade Ukraine. Of course, we didn't sign that. The opposite happened. He wanted us to sign a promise never to enlarge NATO. He wanted us to remove our military infrastructure in in all allies that have joined NATO since 1997, meaning half of NATO, all the Central and Eastern Europe. We should remove NATO from that of our alliance introducing some kind of E and B or second class membership. We rejected that. So he went to war to prevent NATO, more NATO close to its borders, he has got the exact opposite. He has got more NATO presence in the eastern part of the alliance.
dbenner83
Posted - January 28, 2024 at 7:44 PM
Saved - January 29, 2024 at 6:14 PM

@dbenner83 - Dave Benner, Nemesis of Neocons

@TuckerCarlson Yes! If only they would have listened to Ron Paul. https://t.co/jfxmlJ0ZxN

Video Transcript AI Summary
Today, the speaker discusses the common debate of being pro-Israel or pro-Arab, but suggests a third option: being pro-American. They argue that the best interest of the United States is to remain neutral and not involve themselves in conflicts they cannot solve. Instead of giving both sides money and telling them what to do, the speaker proposes defunding both sides. They believe that funding leads to unintended consequences and makes the US complicit in the violence. The speaker advocates for a policy of non-intervention, where the US does not dictate actions but can condemn violence equally. They urge against supporting the resolution.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: We hear today talk about being having solidarity with Israel. And others get up and and try in their best way to defend the Palestinians and and the Arabs. So it's sort of a contest, should we be pro Israel or pro Arab or anti Israel or anti Arab and how do we how are we seen in doing this? And it's pretty important. But I think there's a third option to this that we so often forget about. Why why can't we be pro American? What is in the best interest of the United States? We haven't even heard that yet. I believe that it's in the best interest of the United States Not to get into a fight. A fight that we don't have the wisdom to figure out. Now, I would like To have neutrality. That's been the tradition for America at least a century ago. To be friends with everybody, trade with everybody, and to be neutral unless somebody declares war against us. But not not to demand that we pick sides. Now I have a proposal and a suggestion, which I think fits the American tradition, that we should treat both sides equally, but in a different way. Today, we treat both sides equally by giving both sides money, and telling them what to do. Not a $1,000,000 here or there. Not a 100,000,000 here or there, but tens of 1,000,000,000 of dollars over decades. Always trying to buy peace. And my argument is that it generally doesn't work. That there are unintended consequences. These things backfire. They come back to haunt us. So I think we should start off by defunding defunding both sides. I I'm just not for Giving all this money. Because every time there are civilians killed on the Israeli side or civilian killed On the Palestinian side, you can be assured that either our money was used directly or indirectly to do that killing. So we are In a way, an accomplice on all this because we fund both sides. The policy of foreign non intervention where the United States is not the bully and doesn't come in and tell everybody exactly what to do and put these demands on. If we didn't do that, yes, we could we could have some moral authority to come condemn violence. But should we not Condemn violence equally? Could it be true that only innocent civilians have died on one side and not the other? I don't believe that to be true. I believe that it happens on both sides, And on both sides, they use our money to do this. I urge a no vote on this resolution.
dbenner83
Posted - January 28, 2024 at 8:04 PM
Saved - January 28, 2024 at 9:23 PM

@dbenner83 - Dave Benner, Nemesis of Neocons

@RealAlexJones Fauci must pay for his lies. https://t.co/ug11DJal4Z

Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker discusses pandemic preparedness and the potential challenges the coming administration may face. They address the issue of gain of function research and deny funding it in the Wuhan Institute of Virology. The speaker emphasizes the need to keep an open mind regarding the origins of the coronavirus and dismisses conspiracy theories. They provide guidance on mask-wearing and highlight the importance of vaccination. The speaker clarifies their stance on lockdown measures and refutes claims that vaccines can make people worse. They mention the optimal degree of protection after infection is vaccination. The speaker acknowledges concerns about long-term effects of vaccines and the need for further study. They express frustration with misinformation and disinformation campaigns.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Effective to Speaker 1: the topic today is the issue of pandemic, preparedness. And if there's one message that I want to leave with you today based on my experience, and you'll see that in a moment, is that there is no question that there will be a challenge, the coming administration in the arena of infectious diseases, but also there will be a surprise outbreak. Speaker 0: I I don't know how many times I can say it, madam chair. We did not fund gain of function research to be conducted in the Wuhan Institute of Virology. Anyway, so let me just go on about NIH lifts Funding pause on gain of function research that might be anticipated to create, transfer, or use enhanced potential pandemic pathogens. I don't think this is gonna be foolproof. Things are gonna slip through. Speaker 2: If it may have been a lab, may have been nature, we're supposed to look forward, then why did doctor Fauci work so hard for just one of those theories? Speaker 0: I'm almost have to laugh at that, Neil. I mean, that's totally bizarre. First of all, I wasn't leaning totally strongly one way or the other. I've always kept an open mind. Speaker 3: As you know, there's a sort of urban legend that there's a biological warfare center in Wuhan in that the coronavirus escaped from that, did you have any sense of where it probably came from? Speaker 0: I think, ultimately, we know that these things come from an animal reservoir. I've heard these conspiracy theories. And like all conspiracy theories, dude, they're just conspiracy theories. I wasn't leaning totally strongly one way or the other. I've always kept an open mind. Right now, people should not be there's no reason to be walking around with a mask. Should you be wearing 2 masks or one mask? I often, myself, wear 2 masks. Can we make a general recommendation that doesn't have scientific basis yet? No. Please wear a mask. The chances of my getting infected in an indoor setting is Extremely low. And that's the reason why in indoor settings now, I feel comfortable about not wearing the mask because I'm fully man I'm fully vaccinated. When you're In a congregate indoor setting, wear a mask. First of all, I didn't recommend locking anything down. I went with doctor Birx into the president and said, 15 days are not enough. We need to go 30 days. Obviously, there were people who had a problem with that because of the potential secondary effects. Nonetheless, At that time, the president went with the health recommendations, and we extended it another 30 days. First of all, I didn't recommend locking anything down. So worst possible thing you could do is vaccinate somebody to prevent infection and actually make them worse. This would not be the first time If it happened that a vaccine that looked good in initial safety actually made people worse. Well, the latter Part of what you just said is untrue. You don't get worse results from vaccinating Speaker 4: really has the flu, she definitely doesn't need a flu vaccine. Speaker 0: The optimal degree of protection, when you get infection is to get vaccinated after infection Speaker 4: because the best vaccination is to get infected yourself. Speaker 0: The optimal degree of protection when you get infection is to get vaccinated after infection Speaker 4: she really has the flu, she definitely doesn't need a flu vaccine. Speaker 0: So if you're saying, are we out of the pandemic phase in this country? We are. Speaker 5: Is this country ready for another pandemic? And are we still in the one we have not Yeah. That we've been talking about? Speaker 0: Well, we certainly are still in it The safety of these vaccines have been clearly established. The long term effects that the people are apparently concerned about really have with with I'm sure there is a very, very, very, very rare exception, but the long term effects are really essentially non existing Speaker 5: Do we have any data about, you know, vaccines and the the back end of that or the negative side of that? There's been a number of studies. New York Times just did one about, menstruating cycles and how that is affected by vaccines. Speaker 0: Yeah. Though well, the menstrual thing, is is something that seems to be quite transient and and temporary. That's the point. That's one of the points. We need to study it more. We need to study it. Because the other side that just keeps putting out misinformation and disinformation Seems to be tireless in that effort. An article in the San Francisco Examiner, I think, the Sunday Magazine section, which was just phenomenal. I still have a picture of it. It says, I call you murderer, an open letter to an incompetent idiot, doctor Anthony Fauci, the director of NIAID.
dbenner83
Posted - January 19, 2024 at 7:03 PM
Saved - January 19, 2024 at 10:50 PM

@dbenner83 - Dave Benner, Nemesis of Neocons

@VivekGRamaswamy Yes! Ron Paul knew the FBI needed to be shut down in 1988: https://t.co/fG4hhFGuRW

Video Transcript AI Summary
Throughout history, the FBI has been used to spy on American citizens who disagreed with certain policies, such as Woodrow Wilson using it during World War I and both Democrats and Republicans using it during the Vietnam era. It seems that the FBI was specifically designed to monitor Americans who opposed foreign policy. While some of their investigations have been beneficial, the FBI's extensive record-keeping could be handled by state justice departments. On the other hand, the CIA, which has only been around since 1947, has a poor track record. It was utilized by Democratic administrations, but the details are not mentioned.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: You know, most of our history, we didn't didn't have those institutions. The FBI came in, during the First World War. And interestingly enough, one thing that Woodrow Wilson did, he used the FBI to spy on American citizens and actually arrest them if they disagreed with his foreign policy about going to war in Europe. And isn't it interesting how recent they used it in the Vietnam era? Democrats used there and Republicans used the FBI to spy on a 100 different groups in this country, including the churches who disagree with the policy in Central America. It almost looks like the FBI was designed to spy on Americans who might be disagreeing, with policy, especially the foreign policy. So the FBI, although I don't think I can condemn everything they've ever done because I'm sure some of the investigations and investigation of crime, has been beneficial, but that could be accomplished through Justice department within our states. We wouldn't reject that, portion of it. I think the the FBI has kept and continues to keep a lot of records on a lot of individuals. The CIA has only been here since 1947. Their record is lousy. You just think of the CIA used by the Democratic Administration to
View Full Interactive Feed