That's great research, Al, thanks for the links.

Among the most disturbing snippets...

"Veterans Today is a homegrown American site that was founded in 2003 in opposition to the invasion of Iraq and soon began publishing wild conspiracy theories. Before it partnered with Russia’s New Eastern Outlook in 2013, it had forged ties with Iran’s state-backed PressTV and counted among its editorial board of directors a former head of Pakistan’s intelligence services, publishing headlines like, “Israeli death squads involved in Sandy Hook bloodbath” and “Water Terrorism by India to Overawe Pakistan.”

A Veterans Today bio for Dean lists several relatives and ancestors who served in the military and describes his membership in several military-themed groups but does not indicate he himself has served. The site’s chairman, Gordon Duff, served in the Marine Corps in Vietnam and began contributing to the site in 2008. In one 2012 interview, he stated, “About 30% of what’s written on Veterans Today, is patently false. About 40% of what I write, is at least purposely, partially false, because if I didn’t write false information I wouldn’t be alive.”

So Duff is clinically paranoid to say the least, possibly delusional, and admits he's lying in print. Why, then, would anyone bother to post a link to his rubbish? Unless it confirms their own prejudices.

Ok, we want to go that way huh, attacking the founder of the site rather than the writer and issue at hand. Lets also mention that accusations are not proof. Lets also mention that there are a lot, I mean, lots of people who believe in a lot of the same "conspiracy theories" he's accused of believing. I personally take it as a complement when called a conspiracy nut. It just usually means the caller is ignorant and wishes to remain ignorant. Unable to or afraid to learn the truth. Then you want to direct me to a site with a pure biased agenda. You might want to give their about page a read. It doesn't take long to see them contradict their mission. Politico!?! Now you're really reaching, again! Here we have a news site that is made up of arms from the main stream media as long as the Mississippi and Missouri rivers. Obviously bias geared more towards liberals. Stop right there. No, I'm not a conservative either. See, I have a real problem when a site dedicated to providing information makes accusations towards someone without actually providing PROOF. When the links provided after an accusation lead me to a description of the accusation rather than the action of intent of the accused, I get a fishy smell! It's because that is a misleading means to manage one's perception. If someone goes into the site and reads that without actually clicking on the links, it's to easy to take what is typed out on the page as fact. They blindly close the page out and go on as ignorant as they went in. So RationalWiki easily goes down in flames. As far as Politico. Well, establishment made from establishment doesn't work for me.

Lets move on though. You say- "and how it targets the US Military" I take that as you would be one who would like to silence free speech of the press, the 4th estate, to do their job. Lets just take that part of the check and balance system out right? We don't need no dam independent news sources out there doing real investigative journalism, right. All they'll do is mess up the system of illusion, via managed perception, the main stream media helps the establishment get away with. We need a dumbed down population, not people that know the truth about what we're doing around the world, and to them. Ok, maybe you just forgot about the 4th estate? Here's a refresher course.

What is the Fourth Estate? [thoughtco.com]

When, wait, if, being I have my doubts you'll give me the light of day, you get done with the last paragraph. Be sure to click on that link provided, First Amendment to the Constitution, so you know that what we are talking about right now is also actually part of the Constitution! I give you Thomas Jefferson.

@William_Mary Understanding is not attacking. Anyway, now hold the link you provided to the same standards and you will find that "sources say" and "sources also say" mixed in with using Bild as a source as if to give the other, unnamed sources, some sort of credibility.

@AlPastor Just as I figured. I'd be wasting my time on another person unable to hold a discussion to the topics that have been brought forth. Another one to join my list, with Paul, who can't provide any commentary with substance and or stay on topic. Only attack attack attack. Good luck with that in your life.

@William_Mary Stay woke!