Heh. Figur it out yet? Look in a mirror for bad guys.

Depends on what they could gain by it.
However, I think the East European disgust with Trudeau is authentic.
Possibly because of genuine recoil from tyranny (been there, done that) OR because he was so blatant and heavy-handed that he spooked the plebes.

I made this comment on another blog, but I’ll repeat it here. Whether or not Trudeau deserves it, the MEPs are badmouthing an outsider. Think they’d do that to one of their own?

Farage is the only example I can think of, and he’s hardly typical.

Cook’s bias is pretty clear from the thumbnails at his blog.
https://www.jonathan-cook.net/

Geoffrey is right that a generally biased source can be correct about some things.
Hence my comment on the “Russian military” thread also applies here, with a bit of editing.
* * *
Fog of war, competing stories with no trusted arbiter, and the bias of all sources make it hard from this [much longer] distance to decide who to believe. Particularly since any given story or source can be mixing (A) objectively true statements (even if we can’t verify them ourselves) with (B) possibly true statements (no one really knows) with (C) false claims.

I do NOT accept “leaked stories from the Pentagon” [or Jonathan Cook or pretty much anyone else with a known ax to grind] as anything other than (B) because of their history [depending on said source] of promoting what are now known to be (C).

GB: “Never said or even implied that [your choice of villain du jour] is a good guy. Just that he’s not the only bad guy leading the unwitting.”

I do agree with this, but it’s very, very unclear who the other bad guys are [were], what they are [were] “leading” with and why, and who (if any) are [were] the good guys.
….
Beyond [a minimum amount of objectively verified physical facts, like dead people and destroyed buildings] lies speculation, much of it rivaling the plot lines of Game of Thrones, of which I have been posting my fair share.

However common and disreputable, swinish and worthless he may be, that doesn’t in and of itself invalidate all of his claims.

I’ve seen the video of Allbright stating that the killing of those children was “worth it” and she did not qualify that assertion in any way, not even disputing the claim of half a million children’s deaths. Had she claimed it to be a horrible necessity, that would be a legitimate if questionable argument to make. Had she stated that Saddam was responsible for the deaths, that would also be a legitimate argument. She did none of that and instead agreed that it was… worth it.

NATO’s bombing of Serbia in a religious civil war was, arguably an indefensible interference and supports his claim of NATO becoming the European arm of the U.S. global police force.

Thank goodness for small favors.

He’s a journalist of a very common and disreputable type. He’s British, so his favorite target is the Joos. You notice he never quotes her in context, never cites any source for his demographic claims, and makes no reference whatsoever to the reason for the sanctions, and offers no alternative. He’s a swinish, worthless word merchant.

I strive for objectivity with my feet of clay. I deeply believe in “This above all, to thine own self be true”…

I confess to loving puppies and apple pie à la Mode.