Originally posted by DivineOb
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Civics 101 Guidelines
Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less
Russian Bounty on U.S. military in Afghanistan.
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by DivineBoob View PostAs laid out here Ratfink is dishonestly representing the Russian bounty intelligence.
And that narrative would basically be a form of propaganda that would make Soviets blush. That’s because the gaps and discrepancies within the underlying intelligence — if accurately reported, including those contained in the SOCM — are basically an everyday occurrence when it comes to the process of analyzing sensitive intelligence on important national security topics and presenting policymakers with the information they need to make decisions and pursue courses of action. In other words, the characterizations above could be, in a narrow sense, accurate; but the takeaways that the White House intends to draw and disseminate from them could still be wildly misleading.
Much more in that in depth article. Funny how both CP and MM fell for Ratfink's spin.Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
Than a fool in the eyes of God
From "Fools Gold" by Petra
Comment
-
Originally posted by Mountain Man View PostThe only spin I see here is from a website that is a well-known mouthpiece for the Democrat party desperately trying to turn "medium confidence" into something more.
Congrats, you've outdone yourself.
Comment
-
Originally posted by DivineBoob View PostYour source is a *comment* on Conservative [Treehouse].Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
Than a fool in the eyes of God
From "Fools Gold" by Petra
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by DivineBoob View PostI'll wait for a named source.
But it's obvious you didn't even bother to read what I linked to because it's just a helpful summary of a two part article from a "named source", but in this case, you don't even have to take the source's word for it since everything can be checked yourself through publicly available information. I've checked, and I can confirm that the info is solid. What about you?
The short version is that Just Security is a publication of the New York University Law School's Reiss Center which is packed from top to bottom with former Obama administration officials, so not exactly the most unbiased or credible bunch.Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
Than a fool in the eyes of God
From "Fools Gold" by Petra
Comment
-
Why did Pelosi ignore the briefing too?
On Monday’s broadcast of CNN’s “Cuomo Primetime,” Rep. Chris Stewart (R-UT), who was briefed on the intelligence about Russian bounties on U.S. soldiers, stated that the intelligence “isn’t something that just popped up in the last few weeks or the last few months. Some of this intel actually goes back for several years.” And that “Nancy Pelosi had this presented to her as well, in much the same format. So did Adam Schiff. All of us did.”
Stewart said, “The truth is, is that we don’t know. Could Russia have done that? Absolutely. … Do we know they did that? We just don’t know yet. Which is why the president and other senior leadership haven’t acted or done anything on this yet. Because, once again, Chris, we just don’t know. We’re trying to find out for sure. But this is something that goes back a long time too. This isn’t something that just popped up in the last few weeks or the last few months. Some of this intel actually goes back for several years.”
He later added that the president was never orally briefed on the matter, no president ever reads all of their daily brief all of the time, and “Director Ratcliffe, the CIA, the president, the vice president, Robert O’Brien, the NSA, everyone around him has been very clear that they did not brief this to the president or the vice president.”
https://www.breitbart.com/clips/2020...several-years/
Last edited by Sparko; 07-07-2020, 10:40 AM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sparko View PostWhy did Pelosi ignore the briefing too?
On Monday’s broadcast of CNN’s “Cuomo Primetime,” Rep. Chris Stewart (R-UT), who was briefed on the intelligence about Russian bounties on U.S. soldiers, stated that the intelligence “isn’t something that just popped up in the last few weeks or the last few months. Some of this intel actually goes back for several years.” And that “Nancy Pelosi had this presented to her as well, in much the same format. So did Adam Schiff. All of us did.”
Stewart said, “The truth is, is that we don’t know. Could Russia have done that? Absolutely. … Do we know they did that? We just don’t know yet. Which is why the president and other senior leadership haven’t acted or done anything on this yet. Because, once again, Chris, we just don’t know. We’re trying to find out for sure. But this is something that goes back a long time too. This isn’t something that just popped up in the last few weeks or the last few months. Some of this intel actually goes back for several years.”
He later added that the president was never orally briefed on the matter, no president ever reads all of their daily brief all of the time, and “Director Ratcliffe, the CIA, the president, the vice president, Robert O’Brien, the NSA, everyone around him has been very clear that they did not brief this to the president or the vice president.”
https://www.breitbart.com/clips/2020...several-years/
2) Pelosi didn't ask Russia into the G7
3) Pelosi hasn't continued to remain silent wrt Russia after this broke
4) I have no idea what "much the same format" means. That could mean practically *anything*.
5) How would it make any difference at all whether Pelosi heard this Intel as well as Trump? If that's true then I'll gladly call her out. Will you now call Trump out? Of course not.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Mountain Man View PostOh, so now you suddenly care about named sources.
But it's obvious you didn't even bother to read what I linked to because it's just a helpful summary of a two part article from a "named source", but in this case, you don't even have to take the source's word for it since everything can be checked yourself through publicly available information. I've checked, and I can confirm that the info is solid. What about you?
The short version is that Just Security is a publication of the New York University Law School's Reiss Center which is packed from top to bottom with former Obama administration officials, so not exactly the most unbiased or credible bunch.
I reject your premise that Obama officials are inherently untrustworthy. I tend to assume that any high government official is trustworthy and competent until proven otherwise.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sparko View PostWhy did Pelosi ignore the briefing too?
On Monday’s broadcast of CNN’s “Cuomo Primetime,” Rep. Chris Stewart (R-UT), who was briefed on the intelligence about Russian bounties on U.S. soldiers, stated that the intelligence “isn’t something that just popped up in the last few weeks or the last few months. Some of this intel actually goes back for several years.” And that “Nancy Pelosi had this presented to her as well, in much the same format. So did Adam Schiff. All of us did.”
Stewart said, “The truth is, is that we don’t know. Could Russia have done that? Absolutely. … Do we know they did that? We just don’t know yet. Which is why the president and other senior leadership haven’t acted or done anything on this yet. Because, once again, Chris, we just don’t know. We’re trying to find out for sure. But this is something that goes back a long time too. This isn’t something that just popped up in the last few weeks or the last few months. Some of this intel actually goes back for several years.”
He later added that the president was never orally briefed on the matter, no president ever reads all of their daily brief all of the time, and “Director Ratcliffe, the CIA, the president, the vice president, Robert O’Brien, the NSA, everyone around him has been very clear that they did not brief this to the president or the vice president.”
https://www.breitbart.com/clips/2020...several-years/
Comment
-
Originally posted by DivineOb View Post1) Pelosi isn't the president
2) Pelosi didn't ask Russia into the G7
3) Pelosi hasn't continued to remain silent wrt Russia after this broke
4) I have no idea what "much the same format" means. That could mean practically *anything*.
5) How would it make any difference at all whether Pelosi heard this Intel as well as Trump? If that's true then I'll gladly call her out. Will you now call Trump out? Of course not.
If it really were a big deal and real, then she and congress is just as complicit in their neglect as Trump is.
If it isn't real and not a big deal then nobody should be called out on ignoring this and it is just another fake news story by the failing NYT.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sparko View PostShe probably didn't even look at the briefings or dismissed them as not important until the story broke and she realized she could use it as an attack against Trump.
If it really were a big deal and real, then she and congress is just as complicit in their neglect as Trump is.
If it isn't real and not a big deal then nobody should be called out on ignoring this and it is just another fake news story by the failing NYT.
Does it not trouble you that Trump asked Russia back into the G7 when there is even an outside chance that the bounties exist without even performing minimal followup?
Comment
-
WH has made it known Barr is on the hunt for the "leaker(s)" behind this story. Kind of hard to leak something false, isn't it?
Not to mention that if this information was really as widely disseminated as some are claiming it would be a virtual impossibility to even begin to narrow down the source of the leak(s). Hmm...Last edited by DivineOb; 07-07-2020, 01:19 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by DivineBoob View PostOf course I read the link, idiot.Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
Than a fool in the eyes of God
From "Fools Gold" by Petra
Comment
-
Originally posted by Mountain Man View PostThen why all the whooping and hollering about wanting a "named source"?
And it's called pointing out that your arbitrary rule used to exclude data you don't like can similarly be arbitrarily used to exclude data you do like. That's why arbitrary rules are a bad idea.
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by little_monkey, Yesterday, 04:19 PM
|
16 responses
127 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by One Bad Pig
Today, 11:55 AM
|
||
Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
|
53 responses
328 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Mountain Man
Today, 11:32 AM
|
||
Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
|
25 responses
112 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by rogue06
Today, 08:36 AM
|
||
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
|
33 responses
197 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Roy
Today, 07:43 AM
|
||
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
|
84 responses
361 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by JimL
Today, 11:08 AM
|
Comment