Ukrainian troops sent by Kiev defect to anti-government protesters.

[sabrina 1]

180. Well, when you wrongfully attribute words to someone whose words are right in front of you

it doesn't do much for the rest of what you are 'putting forth'.

Let me first correct the false statements you just attributed to me:

The fact that you are touting the fact that members of Congress or the State Department traveled to a foreign country as if it is so unheard of and so unexpected is totally out of line with reality. It happens all the time, and the fact that it happens isn't proof positive that the US is plotting a secret coup in that country.

Also out of line with reality is your claim that the fact that the US has given money to NGOs in Ukraine means that we were plotting a coup in Ukraine. Again, it's not all that uncommon, whether you like it or not. Just for example:

1. I said Members of Congress AND the State Department. Not OR .... Both, from the State Dept AND from Congress.

Oh yes they DO travel to 'foreign countries' all the time. Eg, they were traveling to several of the other nations we eventually invaded for years.

What a coincidence that all these US Officials just wandered into the latest country we claim to have 'interests' in months before the coup, and how lucky for us they placed OUR guy in power. We have been VERY lucky with the 'coincidences' that have occurred over the past few decades regarding this sort of thing. VERY LUCKY indeed!

2.I never mentioned NGOs so have no idea where you got that from. But since you mentioned it, it is well known now that this IS a method used, though not the only one, to funnel US Tax Dollars to certain groups in different parts of the world. The reason why US NGOs have become suspect in many of the countries in which the Western powers are interfering.

As for this:

You keep on throwing red herrings out there, like "Why are they spending money there and not here?" or the whole "neo-Nazi" canard. None of those questions or issues have anything to do with proving that the recent change in power in Ukraine was a US sponsored coup.

So we call Congress approving five Billion Tax Dollars for Ukraine, with more to come we are told, 'a red herring' now. Really? Did I imagine that Congress approved billions of our tax dollars for a foreign country whose economy is tanking more rapidly every day and which we will, as have in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere be forced to foot the bill for so the Global Investors and Defense Contractors can profit from our money??

You call it a red herring if you like, I know what most Americans are calling it.

'The whole Neo Nazi 'canard'??

McCain Meets with Oleh Tyahnybok in Ukraine



U.S. Senator John McCain, center, speaks as Democratic senator from the state of Connecticut, Chris Murphy, second left, and Opposition leader Oleh Tyahnybok, right, stand around him during a Pro-European Union rally in Independence Square in Kiev, Ukraine, Sunday, Dec. 15, 2013.

Mmm, so this is called a 'canard'. Okay, call it whatever you want to call it ....

Nowadays Svoboda (which means freedom in Ukrainian) is one of those reconstructed modern European far right parties — it is aligned with the British National Party and the French National Front, for example — and it has gained some kind of electoral legitimacy, winning 10 percent of the seats in Ukraine's parliament in 2010.

However, the party's past is seriously murky. When it was founded in 1995, the party called itself the Social-National Party of Ukraine (SNPU), and it had a swastika-like logo.

In summary, here is your interpretation of the known facts so far:

1. Congressional approval of billions of dollars for Ukraine = Red Herring
2. Two US Senators posing for photos with the leader of Ukraine's far right Neo Nazi Party = 'A Canard'
3. US State Dept. Officials AND US Senators visiting Ukraine months before the Kiev Coup = 'A Coincidence'.

And who is calling your interpretation of the facts 'the accepted narrative'. I accept FACTS, not someone's 'narrative of the facts'. That is what we call 'an attempt to make the facts look like something other than the facts'. Iow, you have done nothing to change the facts with what you call the 'acceptive narrative'. The word 'narrative' btw = 'story telling'.

We don't need story telling when we have the facts as I have just demonstrated. McCain was given an opportunity to explain his visit with these people, but so far has declined to do so. Therefore the only facts we have are those I just presented.


As Shakespeare said about the use of words: 'what's in a name, a Rose by any other name would smell as sweet'. or in today's vernacular 'if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, talks like a duck, it IS a duck' we have to assume, until we have something to prove that we really did NOT see and hear what we thought we saw and heard, these are the facts that we have.

You can call these FACTS whatever you want, it won't change the FACTS.