You may be surprised to learn that “A few days ago, the UN Security Council held hearings on the accusations by Seymour Hersh that the Biden Administration had illegally destroyed Europe’s $30 billion Nord Stream pipelines.” Jeffery Sachs and Ray McGovern gave testimony.
Tidewater Forum had a post on the Hersh story earlier this month:
Tidewater News and Opinion Forum 
As far as I can tell, neither of these witnesses have any knowledge of the facts – just their opinions. It is not surprising that media which reports the news did not cover non news.
By the way, any article that refers to the Chinese spy balloons as “errant weather balloons” is not to be trusted. They obviously have the anti-American agenda that is typical of a lot of right-wing media these days.
LikeLiked by 1 person
RE: “By the way, any article that refers to the Chinese spy balloons as ‘errant weather balloons’ is not to be trusted.”
Why not?
LikeLike
“Why not?”
Because they were not “errant weather balloons.” Duh!
LikeLiked by 1 person
How do you know this?
LikeLike
“How do you know this?”
By paying attention to truthful and objective media reports. You should try it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
RE: “By paying attention to truthful and objective media reports. You should try it.”
I don’t think you do.
LikeLike
Republicans in Congress told us. They are lockstep adamant that Biden let the Chinese spy on us across the nation until it got over the waters off South Carolina. To their credit, they did attend the classified briefings, too.
LikeLiked by 2 people
“I don’t think you do.”
You have no reason for such an opinion. I think you are just being childish. But, that’s okay. You are probably doing the best you can, bless your heart.
LikeLiked by 1 person
RE: “Republicans in Congress told us.”
Of the four balloons shot down, two are lost and never recovered, one is thought to have been an amateur (U.S.) science project, and the one from China reportedly blew off course according to U.S. authorities and would not have overflown the U.S. otherwise.
LikeLiked by 1 person
So your point is that the Republicans were lying just to get a dig at Biden?
Considering the past, lying Republicans is pretty much the norm so I understand the confusion.
LikeLiked by 2 people
RE: “You have no reason for such an opinion.”
Actually, I do. You made an allegation that you can’t back up.
LikeLike
“Actually, I do. You made an allegation that you can’t back up.”
I did not make up an allegation. I stated a fact. These balloons were NOT “errant weather balloons.” I know that because they have been analyzed by the DOD and reputable media have reported their findings.
Only disreputable media – the kind you rely on – would still be parrotting Chinese lies which is how I know that they are not to be trusted.
LikeLiked by 1 person
RE: “So your point is that the Republicans were lying just to get a dig at Biden?”
I’m not saying anything about the Republicans. I’m pointing out that Mr. Murphy’s comments on the subject are without merit. They certainly don’t support his contention that The Unz Review is unreliable.
LikeLike
RE: “These balloons were NOT ‘errant weather balloons.’ I know that because they have been analyzed by the DOD and reputable media have reported their findings.”
You don’t know anything; you are just running your mouth. Here is WSJ:
“The U.S. military spent at least $1.5 million to shoot down three airborne objects, which it now believes were likely recreational balloons, defense officials said Wednesday.”
https://www.wsj.com/articles/pentagon-spent-at-least-1-5-million-on-missiles-to-down-three-high-altitude-objects-b358e522?st=gxht3udkneiuxki&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink
LikeLike
“You don’t know anything . . .”
Sure, after the DOD tightened their parameters to find the Chinese spy balloons they started picking up smaller bogeys that turned out to be harmless. So what? The very large balloon shot down off the East coast was a spy balloon according to the DOD and reliable news reports. THAT is the Chinese balloon that your source referred to as an “errant weather balloon.” Any source that deliberately distorts the facts to suit their agenda is not a reliable source and not worth trusting.
LikeLiked by 1 person
RE: “The very large balloon shot down off the East coast was a spy balloon according to the DOD and reliable news reports. THAT is the Chinese balloon that your source referred to as an ‘errant weather balloon.'”
No, it isn’t. You either misread the Unz statement, or you are lying.
LikeLike
“No, it isn’t. You either misread the Unz statement”
I can admit when I have made a mistake. I did indeed misread the sarcastic remark about balloons. It was not about the original Chinese balloon but referred to the subsequent series of balloons being shot down.
My bad and I apologize for the wasted discussion.
LikeLike
Nice job of deflection. But whatever the truth about the balloons might be does not change the question of whether the United States is guilty of an act of terrorism.
LikeLike
“Nice job of deflection. But whatever the truth about the balloons might be does not change the question of whether the United States is guilty of an act of terrorism.”
I already addressed that in my first comment. Neither of these witnesses offered anything but opinions about what might have happened. Neither of them had evidence to support their opinions and neither did Hersh.
My comment about the balloons was not a deflection. It was an observation that the source displayed very palpable anti-American bias with their lies about them. With such bias, credibility goes out the window and the author’s attempts to make a case against this country is greatly weakened.
LikeLiked by 1 person
RE: “Neither of them had evidence to support their opinions and neither did Hersh.”
Wrong. You just refuse to consider their statements. Sachs testified that the evidence of sabatoge on its face indicates a sophisticated state action. McGovern testified that U.S. intelligence agencies have a hisory of lying.
What’s important is that the UN considers Hersh’s allegations worth investigating. You have offered no reason to believe otherwise.
LikeLike
“Sachs testified that the evidence of sabatoge on its face indicates a sophisticated state action. McGovern testified that U.S. intelligence agencies have a hisory of lying.”
Yes, like I already said all they had to say was their opinions about what might have happened. You have now confirmed it with your recap.
There are MANY states capable of “sophisticated state action.” They include the United States, Russia, Ukraine, China, Great Britain and others.
Yes, intelligence agencies lie and doubly so to cover up what they have done. Any denial from any such agency of any country cannot be taken as the last word.
I said nothing about the UN investigating the affair. That is fine with me. I hope they can get to the bottom of it based on evidence. But the fact that they chose to look into it is not evidence that the anonymous claims about our role are true.
LikeLiked by 1 person