U.S. accuses Russia of sophisticated influence campaigns against U.S. voters

[Danthemailman]

The accusations in the OP were not made by Democrats.

Regardless, just saying.

 

[NxNW]

Regardless, just saying.

Then please stay on topic.

 

[Danthemailman]

Then please stay on topic.

Sorry.

 

[Pommer]

If you want to see what the Democrats are up to, just listen to what they accuse others of doing.

Where are these accusations? Are they here, in the room, with us?

 

[Danthemailman]

Where are these accusations? Are they here, in the room, with us?

I wasn't pointing fingers directly at anyone in this room. I was talking about democratic politicians. The Biden administration is a good example.

 

[Pommer]

I wasn't pointing fingers directly at anyone in this room. I was talking about democratic politicians. The Biden administration is a good example.

Would you mind if I asked you to flesh this “the Biden administration is a good example” out a bit, as we’re not privy to what that might mean? Does the present administration blame the previous administration for problems, yes and the sun rises in the East. What are the other “accusations” of which we are speaking?

 

[Hans Blaster]

I'm only vaguely familiar with Pool. I'm aware of him, but the only time I've really heard him is on other peoples' podcasts.

Dave Rubin on the other hand, I'm a little more familiar with his content.

He's been something of a libertarian leaning conservative for going on 4-5 years now (he used to work for the Young Turks at one point, and ended up working for Glen Beck for a stint before doing his own thing in 2020. The divisive topics they mention, he's been critical of for a while.

I first ran into Dave Rubin about a decade ago when I discovered "atheist YouTube" thanks to links from this very site. (Thanks guys!) He was a center rightish libertarian atheist with a fancy set and a casual interview style. At some point he got in to bed (metaphorically) with the Chrisitian conservatives and joined (ironically?) the "intellectual dark web". I lost any minor interest in his work around that time.

With regards to the charges being levied against RT:
If there's evidence of election interference attempts, that's certainly a valid charge, by all means throw the book at them.

However, some of the things The Justice Departments lists is "create social divisions" and "will not tolerate attempts by an outside nation to exploit our country’s free exchange of ideas" are a little more vague.

I find those accusations to be a tad curious...
1) Promoting one viewpoint over the other on a politically divisive issue isn't "creating social divisions", it's simply the nature of discourse when an issue is already divisive.

2) If by "exploit our country's free exchange of ideas" they mean "try to get public opinion in one direction over the other", then that casts a pretty wide net that include a bunch of different things.

I believe much of this language originates in internal RT/Kremlin documents about their goals and methods for this project.

For instance, when they brought the Ukrainian president in to do high profile interviews on CNN, Meet the Press, and the very televised address to congress that he did (where he pleaded with the US for support), isn't that sort of the same thing? A foreign entity trying to shape the US public opinion for his own benefit with regards to the "Ukraine funding Debate"?

It is legal to work as a paid foreign agent lobbying, etc. for foreign countries, but you MUST register under FARA. (Foreign Agent Registration Act). They failed to do so.

Even the approach the justice department is using with this could be considered a form of the very type of manipulation they're accusing RT of doing. Highly publicizing this as a means to shape public opinion on the series of issues they laid out by implying/conveying the idea that "if you've taken the conservative position on Ukrainian funding, Migrant policy, or the Trans debate, it's likely a result of Russian propaganda, they're just trying to whip you up into a frenzy because they want republicans to win" by branding it as a "sophisticated influence campaign".

I don't know how sophisticated one can really call it. Giving a conservative media company $10 million dollars to "keep doing what they're doing" isn't exactly the elite covert PsyOp as implied by the sensational sounding descriptions.

It is not the only component, nor are they the only Russian agents and propagandist charged this week. The DOJ has also charged a Russian propagandist working from the US on Russian state television, several Russian hackers, and siezed dozens of fraudulent web sites. There is a certain, former UN weapons inspector I suspect might be similarly charged under FARA later this month based on the recent search of his US home (and his sudden disconnection from his work with Russian TV).

It'd be like a sensational headline saying "DEA uncovers elite, highly sophisticated drug dealing operation", and it turns out, it just ends up being "yeah, you give the money to Jim, and then one of Jim's buddies delivers the drugs later so that the money and drugs aren't in the same place"



In practical terms, where would the line get drawn in terms of which divisive issues a foreign power figure could try to influence US public opinion on without running afoul of the "creating social divisions and putting undue influence our country's exchange of ideas"?

For example
Justin Trudeau went on something of an "American Podcast Tour" in 2022, in which he definitely had no shortage of things to say about US gun control policy, promoted a Pro-choice position, as well as some thoughts about Jared Kuschner. Certainly all polarizing things. I don't think any of us would brand that as some nefarious influence campaign. So where does it cross the line from "here's some policies I'd really like to see people in the US get behind, so I'll go on a podcast and talk about it" to "illegal meddling and creating division"

When they break the law.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I first ran into Dave Rubin about a decade ago when I discovered "atheist YouTube" thanks to links from this very site. (Thanks guys!) He was a center rightish libertarian atheist with a fancy set and a casual interview style. At some point he got in to bed (metaphorically) with the Chrisitian conservatives and joined (ironically?) the "intellectual dark web". I lost any minor interest in his work around that time.

In the interest of fairness...of the content creators working there, according to the DOJ documents...Dave Rubin was the one that actually questioned the funding source and what was going on during his contract negotiations, and subsequently left Tenet 4 months ago. (per Vox)

 

[Danthemailman]

Would you mind if I asked you to flesh this “the Biden administration is a good example” out a bit, as we’re not privy to what that might mean? Does the present administration blame the previous administration for problems, yes and the sun rises in the East. What are the other “accusations” of which we are speaking?

For starters this article below sums it up.

Projection and denial: That’s the Biden way

Sigmund Freud, the founder of psychoanalysis, chronicled neurotic disorders, including “projection” and other psychological defense mechanisms.

www.washingtontimes.com

This statement by Harris below is an excellent example of projection. I almost fell out of my chair when I heard her say this!

x.com

x.com

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Indeed. It doesn't appear they're being charged with election interference though....it looks like they're being charged with not registering as foreign advocates. That's something I thought was only necessary for lobbying the government.

It is legal to work as a paid foreign agent lobbying, etc. for foreign countries, but you MUST register under FARA. (Foreign Agent Registration Act). They failed to do so.

Per the DOJ:
An “agent of a foreign principal” is any person who acts as an agent, representative, employee, or servant, or otherwise acts at the order, request, or under the direction or control of a “foreign principal” and does any of the following:

• Engages within the United States in political activities, such as intending to influence any U.S. Government official or the American public regarding U.S. domestic or foreign policy or the political or public interests of a foreign government or foreign political party.
  
• Acts within the United States as a public relations counsel, publicity agent, information service employee, or political consultant.
  
• Solicits, collects, disburses, or dispenses contributions, loans, money, or other things of value within the United States.
  
• Represents within the United States the interests of a foreign principal before U.S. Government officials or agencies.

https://www.justice.gov/nsd-fara/page/file/1279836/dl

It sounds like, by the letter of the law, a State-run media organization could be required to register.

However, I'd like to see some case examples to see if this is something being applied evenly, or if only certain targets get the "full extent of enforcement".

One higher profile case was when the DOJ tried to sue Steve Wynn (as in, the Casino Magnate), for doing some favors on behalf of China, and the courts tossed that case out.

And there are some legal grey areas per the DOJ link I provided earlier.

1) "FARA does not require registration simply because a person expresses views that are favorable to or coincide with the interests of a foreign country or a foreign person." So the burden of proof would have to be on the DOJ to provide evidence that these two Russian RT employees were doing this at the directive of the Russian government, and not just a case where "Two RT employees, who happen to have the same views as their own government, are disseminating their viewpoint"

2) It mentions that FARA isn't supposed to be used as a way to attempt to restrict speech, only to make people aware of foreign interests the speech could be at the behest of.

Where that gets messy in this case, RT had been registering under FARA starting in 2017 (along with the required renewals) up until the the Russian invasion of Ukraine, at which point they had their privileges revoked and were no longer allowed to register due to the sanctions.

So, in a nutshell, a hypothetical legal defense could be made, that making a FARA a requirement for disseminating speech, and then denying an entity the ability to do said registration, is tantamount to an attempt to restrict speech.

 

[Hans Blaster]

In the interest of fairness...of the content creators working there, according to the DOJ documents...Dave Rubin was the one that actually questioned the funding source and what was going on during his contract negotiations, and subsequently left Tenet 4 months ago. (per Vox)

View attachment 354245

Commentator-1 was apparently assuaged by fake resume, because as that paragraph ends: "After receiving the fictitious profile, Commentator-I agreed to work with U.S. Company-I and produced approximately 130 videos that were published on U.S. Company-1 's platform."

Less gullible than the rest of that bunch isn't really much of a stretch for Rubin.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Per the DOJ:
An “agent of a foreign principal” is any person who acts as an agent, representative, employee, or servant, or otherwise acts at the order, request, or under the direction or control of a “foreign principal” and does any of the following:

• Engages within the United States in political activities, such as intending to influence any U.S. Government official or the American public regarding U.S. domestic or foreign policy or the political or public interests of a foreign government or foreign political party.
• Acts within the United States as a public relations counsel, publicity agent, information service employee, or political consultant.
• Solicits, collects, disburses, or dispenses contributions, loans, money, or other things of value within the United States.
• Represents within the United States the interests of a foreign principal before U.S. Government officials or agencies.

https://www.justice.gov/nsd-fara/page/file/1279836/dl

It sounds like, by the letter of the law, a State-run media organization could be required to register.

However, I'd like to see some case examples to see if this is something being applied evenly, or if only certain targets get the "full extent of enforcement".

One higher profile case was when the DOJ tried to sue Steve Wynn (as in, the Casino Magnate), for doing some favors on behalf of China, and the courts tossed that case out.

And there are some legal grey areas per the DOJ link I provided earlier.

1) "FARA does not require registration simply because a person expresses views that are favorable to or coincide with the interests of a foreign country or a foreign person." So the burden of proof would have to be on the DOJ to provide evidence that these two Russian RT employees were doing this at the directive of the Russian government, and not just a case where "Two RT employees, who happen to have the same views as their own government, are disseminating their viewpoint"

2) It mentions that FARA isn't supposed to be used as a way to attempt to restrict speech, only to make people aware of foreign interests the speech could be at the behest of.

Definitions noted.

Where that gets messy in this case, RT had been registering under FARA starting in 2017 (along with the required renewals) up until the the Russian invasion of Ukraine, at which point they had their privileges revoked and were no longer allowed to register due to the sanctions.

So, in a nutshell, a hypothetical legal defense could be made, that making a FARA a requirement for disseminating speech, and then denying an entity the ability to do said registration, is tantamount to an attempt to restrict speech.

All of the charged conduct occurred *after* the invasion of Ukraine and RT left the US. The DOJ didn't forget to check the FARA registration list for these two. (The only way for them to challenge it anyway would to be arrested, and there is no incentive for the two Russians to willingly do that.)

 

[ThatRobGuy]

All of the charged conduct occurred *after* the invasion of Ukraine and RT left the US. The DOJ didn't forget to check the FARA registration list for these two. (The only way for them to challenge it anyway would to be arrested, and there is no incentive for the two Russians to willingly do that.)

correct, it happened afterwards... which was what I was getting at.

If, indeed, FARA isn't supposed to be for the purposes of squashing viewpoints or speech (per the DOJs own documents), but FARA is required in order for a foreign entity to disseminate viewpoints, making registration unavailable due to the sanctions is tantamount to doing the former.

It'd be like saying
"the purpose of vehicle registration isn't to try to prohibit people from driving, it's just for vetting so that everything is above board when you do drive", and then selectively choosing a group one doesn't like and saying "Group XYZ isn't allowed to apply for a vehicle registration"

...and then targeting them for driving without a registration.



I think in this case, it's not any secret why RT media (once actually embraced by many on the left, they actually won emmys in the 2010's for their coverage of GitMo & Occupy Wall Street -- two other divisive issues, they were just on the Left's side for those) is now all the sudden "the boogeyman", when in all likelihood, they've probably been pushing subliminal pro-Russian messages the entire time.

It's the same reason why "the script flipped" when it came to which faction for/against military action with regards to Russia/Ukraine. (Usually it was the left saying 'we need to stop meddling', and the right saying 'if you don't support military endeavors, then you hate freedom and democracy')

The over-arching narrative was "we got stuck with Trump because of Russia, therefore, we have to be as anti-Russia as possible and ardently support anyone that's against Russia" (thus the reason why we ended up with millions of people getting Ukrainian Flags and Bumper stickers, who otherwise wouldn't have been able to find Ukraine on a map 5 years prior). How "pro-Ukraine" someone could present themselves as became a political amulet to signal "how anti-Trump I am".


Now, to be clear, I'm not playing "Russia fan" here, I don't like their system, their leader, nor the impositions on neighboring countries. But I don't like situations where there are differing sets of rules based on public popularity contests. For instance, if people are going to carry water for China and Iran interests, and promulgate viewpoints for the Palestine/Israel situation, then they're not really in a position to feign concern about RT Media for reasons of "we're concerned about authoritarian regimes that try to influence US perceptions"

 

[childeye 2]

Isn't this exactly what the Harris campaign has been doing?

Kamala Harris Is Using Social Media to Reach Young Voters

How Vice President Kamala Harris’ campaign has embraced social media trends and viral memes to engage with young voters.

time.com

Other than the fact that one is Russia and one is Harris....what exactly is the difference here?

Putin is running a disinformation campaign against Harris in hopes of changing the outcome of the election.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Commentator-1 was apparently assuaged by fake resume, because as that paragraph ends: "After receiving the fictitious profile, Commentator-I agreed to work with U.S. Company-I and produced approximately 130 videos that were published on U.S. Company-1 's platform."

Less gullible than the rest of that bunch isn't really much of a stretch for Rubin.

When it comes to getting duped by foreign lobbyists, it's hard to justify giving social media content creators a higher bar to clear than our own politicians.

https://www.axios.com/2020/12/08/china-spy-california-politicians

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Putin is running a disinformation campaign against Harris in hopes of changing the outcome of the election.

Isn't that what every smear campaign is doing?

I can't speak for anyone in other regions, but for those of us here in Ohio, I can't get through a single YouTube clip or Hulu episode without getting inundated by grossly misleading and/or contextually-lacking attack ads against both Sherod Brown and his opponent Bernie Moreno.

We have lobbying groups like AIPAC and AJP Action, both of which are trying to shape American perceptions on countering sides of the Israel/Palestine.

I would assume these PACs and Lobbying groups aren't buying expensive ad time just to make idle chit chat, and I doubt they're throwing large sums behind specific candidates just to be nice. They're hoping for a specific outcome, correct?


Obviously I understand the context is different when we're talking about foreign entities vs. domestic ones...but, with how ubiquitous dishonesty and misinformation has become in the political realm (for as long as I've been alive), I don't see how anyone could hop atop the moral high-horse with regards to one specific entity, portraying it as if it's anymore nefarious than what's going on domestically.


I think people are also grossly overestimating the impact of "Russian propaganda" with regards to how it'd actually impact the election. Is there some swarm of conservatives who were planning on breaking rank and voting for Harris this time...."until they saw the Tim Pool video, now they want to vote for Trump again", or were there any die-hard social progressives who are going to switch teams because they saw a Facebook post linking a sketchy domain name they've never heard of before? Highly unlikely.


Attributing this stuff to Russia/Putin, I feel, is something of a hedge to deflect from the actual issue that has the bigger potential to damage Harris's campaign, which is the Israel/Palestine conflict. That's where her base (and her party) is more divided, not on the Russia/Ukraine conflict.

If Harris does end up losing this election (polling is still close), it won't be from people who magically became pro-Russia, it'll be because she's not sufficiently "pro-Palestine enough" for a segment of the democratic voter base.

And as of right now, there's nothing stopping AJP Action (a progressive group based in Virginia) from running ads like this:

And if she drifts too far in the other direction, AIPAC will be ready to pounce in similar fashion...

 

[childeye 2]

For starters this article below sums it up.

Projection and denial: That’s the Biden way

Sigmund Freud, the founder of psychoanalysis, chronicled neurotic disorders, including “projection” and other psychological defense mechanisms.

www.washingtontimes.com

This statement by Harris below is an excellent example of projection. I almost fell out of my chair when I heard her say this!

x.com

x.com

What Biden and Harris said is not projecting. How do we know this? Because the reality is that Trump tried to use the DOJ to investigate his political opponents, and to get Pence and government officials to change the outcome of a free and fair election (undermine democracy <--- just like Biden said).

Remember when Trump indicated that, as president, he would send Hillary to jail, but then when he became president, he then changed his tune and said he could have put her in jail, but decided to be nice?

Remember when Trump wouldn't believe our own intelligence agencies over Putin's word about election interference in 2016 (even though he knew Russia was helping his campaign according to the disclosed meeting at Trump Tower)? And remember when Trump wanted Zelensky to work with Giuliana and Bill Barr to investigate Joe Biden, and also look into the "servers" that Russia had said would prove Ukraine was behind the hacking of the DNC?

Remember when Trump said he had the right to interfere with the election by trying to get Pence to reject valid votes? Remember when Trump tried to get the DOJ to suggest there may have been election fraud in Georgia in 2020 when there wasn't any evidence showing that?

Remember Trump saying he was being indicted for election interference and taking classified documents only because his political opponents were weaponizing the DOJ? And finally, do you remember when Trump said that because "THEY" had weaponized the DOJ, then if elected president again he would have the right to use the DOJ to prosecute people like the January 6 committee?

Just so we're clear, the actual and factual events show that Trump said he would use the DOJ to go after Hillary and to investigate Biden. He would then try to get the DOJ to assert falsely to the public that there were signs of election fraud in 2020. And pursuant to his claim that the election was stolen, he said he had the right to get Republican state officials to form slates of fake electors who would then falsely state that Trump won the 2020 election in states that Biden had actually won.

All of this shows that Trump is the one projecting when he says "THEY" have weaponized the DOJ.

 

[childeye 2]

Isn't that what every smear campaign is doing?

Well, when you qualify it as "smear" then it's a rhetorical question. I listen to the words straight from the mouth of a candidate. I will instinctively vote for those who don't resort to smear tactics. It gets a bit more complicated when the user of an ad hominem attack resorts to accusing the one who points out their ad hominem attack, as the one who is smearing them. Hence not everything called a smear campaign is actually a smear campaign.

I can't speak for anyone in other regions, but for those of us here in Ohio, I can't get through a single YouTube clip or Hulu episode without getting inundated by grossly misleading and/or contextually-lacking attack ads against both Sherod Brown and his opponent Bernie Moreno.

We have lobbying groups like AIPAC and AJP Action, both of which are trying to shape American perceptions on countering sides of the Israel/Palestine.

I would assume these PACs and Lobbying groups aren't buying expensive ad time just to make idle chit chat, and I doubt they're throwing large sums behind specific candidates just to be nice. They're hoping for a specific outcome, correct?

Generally speaking, yes, they want a certain outcome. But what if these unknown entities are Machiavellian in their practices? What if they cause conflict so that politically they can be acknowledged as the ones that will enter into the chaos they caused, and bring peace? I was taught to beware of demagogues.

Obviously I understand the context is different when we're talking about foreign entities vs. domestic ones...but, with how ubiquitous dishonesty and misinformation has become in the political realm (for as long as I've been alive), I don't see how anyone could hop atop the moral high-horse with regards to one specific entity, portraying it as if it's anymore nefarious than what's going on domestically.

In the moral/immoral paradigm it's the same spiritual battle happening all over the world. We need to see how and why carnal vanity forms. Any response to my daddy can beat up your daddy, whether to affirm or deny, is essentially accepting a false premise.

I think people are also grossly overestimating the impact of "Russian propaganda" with regards to how it'd actually impact the election. Is there some swarm of conservatives who were planning on breaking rank and voting for Harris this time...."until they saw the Tim Pool video, now they want to vote for Trump again", or were there any die-hard social progressives who are going to switch teams because they saw a Facebook post linking a sketchy domain name they've never heard of before? Highly unlikely.

I see the same spiritual battle all over the world. The only one's pointing out Russian interference are going to be those who are not pro-Putin.

Trump supporters don't even care that Trump tried to illegally stay in power by getting Pence to recognize fake electors and reject the valid electoral vote count. So, they won't care whether or not American foreign policy allows Putin to take over Ukraine.

Attributing this stuff to Russia/Putin, I feel, is something of a hedge to deflect from the actual issue that has the bigger potential to damage Harris's campaign, which is the Israel/Palestine conflict. That's where her base (and her party) is more divided, not on the Russia/Ukraine conflict.

If Harris does end up losing this election (polling is still close), it won't be from people who magically became pro-Russia, it'll be because she's not sufficiently "pro-Palestine enough" for a segment of the democratic voter base.

And as of right now, there's nothing stopping AJP Action (a progressive group based in Virginia) from running ads like this:
View attachment 354252

And if she drifts too far in the other direction, AIPAC will be ready to pounce in similar fashion...

This conflict is as old as Israel itself. I tend to think that God's hand is on this issue, as with many issues, and there are many things that who/what we vote for, won't make a difference.

 

[Hans Blaster]

correct, it happened afterwards... which was what I was getting at.

If, indeed, FARA isn't supposed to be for the purposes of squashing viewpoints or speech (per the DOJs own documents), but FARA is required in order for a foreign entity to disseminate viewpoints, making registration unavailable due to the sanctions is tantamount to doing the former.

It'd be like saying
"the purpose of vehicle registration isn't to try to prohibit people from driving, it's just for vetting so that everything is above board when you do drive", and then selectively choosing a group one doesn't like and saying "Group XYZ isn't allowed to apply for a vehicle registration"

...and then targeting them for driving without a registration.

This (or any other FARA registration) isn't about viewpoints. It is about foreign lobbying.

In case you don't know, the actual charges against the RT employees are *conspiracy* to violate FARA and *conspiracy* to launder money. Conspiracy is that crime where you agree (implicitly or explicitly) with at least one other person to achieve an illegal goal and take a overt act toward that goal. The direct FARA violations (per the indictment) were done by the founders of Tenet media and the 6 commentators.

Though one experience legal commentator I saw thought the Tenet Media founders had already plead and are cooperating, as I read more on this, I have come to think that they are the main targets of the prosecution. The RT defendants won't be arrested unless they leave Russia.

I think in this case, it's not any secret why RT media (once actually embraced by many on the left, they actually won emmys in the 2010's for their coverage of GitMo & Occupy Wall Street -- two other divisive issues, they were just on the Left's side for those) is now all the sudden "the boogeyman", when in all likelihood, they've probably been pushing subliminal pro-Russian messages the entire time.

It's the same reason why "the script flipped" when it came to which faction for/against military action with regards to Russia/Ukraine. (Usually it was the left saying 'we need to stop meddling', and the right saying 'if you don't support military endeavors, then you hate freedom and democracy')

The over-arching narrative was "we got stuck with Trump because of Russia, therefore, we have to be as anti-Russia as possible and ardently support anyone that's against Russia" (thus the reason why we ended up with millions of people getting Ukrainian Flags and Bumper stickers, who otherwise wouldn't have been able to find Ukraine on a map 5 years prior). How "pro-Ukraine" someone could present themselves as became a political amulet to signal "how anti-Trump I am".


Now, to be clear, I'm not playing "Russia fan" here, I don't like their system, their leader, nor the impositions on neighboring countries. But I don't like situations where there are differing sets of rules based on public popularity contests. For instance, if people are going to carry water for China and Iran interests, and promulgate viewpoints for the Palestine/Israel situation, then they're not really in a position to feign concern about RT Media for reasons of "we're concerned about authoritarian regimes that try to influence US perceptions"

I'm really not interested in any arguments in the entire "they only care about Russia because Russia likes the GOP now" spectrum.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

This (or any other FARA registration) isn't about viewpoints. It is about foreign lobbying.

In case you don't know, the actual charges against the RT employees are *conspiracy* to violate FARA and *conspiracy* to launder money. Conspiracy is that crime where you agree (implicitly or explicitly) with at least one other person to achieve an illegal goal and take a overt act toward that goal. The direct FARA violations (per the indictment) were done by the founders of Tenet media and the 6 commentators.

But what choice are people given but to violate FARA, if FARA is made unavailable to them via sanctions?

Is the expectation that all pro-Russian viewpoints be suppressed entirely?

"You have to register if you want to espouse this viewpoint"
"But you can't register if you're operating in a country where this viewpoint is more prevalent"

How is that not suppressing speech? (which, by the DOJ's own guidelines, FARA isn't supposed to be doing)

I'm really not interested in any arguments in the entire "they only care about Russia because Russia likes the GOP now" spectrum.

You probably should be interested in that...because it explains a lot of things.

If there was a facet or aspect of a debate that explained why half the country, overnight, went from an near-absolutist "non-interventionism" position to a "we'd be on board with cutting a blank check for Country A to fight against Country B" position, I'd be curious as to why.

I've heard certain members of the left argue against sending weapons and aid into other foreign conflicts, for reasons far less compelling than the ones surrounding this conflict.

When a group goes from "Ron Paul" to "Lindsey Graham", overnight, on the topic of interventionism, we should all be curious as to why such a radical transformation happened.