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.
See more
See less

Russian Bounty on U.S. military in Afghanistan.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by DivineOb View Post
    Yup. It's a good cartoon.
    Nope.
    The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by DivineBoob View Post
      As 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.
      The 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.
      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 Post
        The 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.
        Your source is a *comment* on Conservative Outhouse.

        Congrats, you've outdone yourself.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by DivineBoob View Post
          Your source is a *comment* on Conservative [Treehouse].
          And? Did you read it? It contains some good information. What do you disagree with specifically? Or are you content with appealing to the genetic fallacy?
          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 Post
            And? Did you read it? It contains some good information. What do you disagree with specifically? Or are you content with appealing to the genetic fallacy?
            I'll wait for a named source.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by DivineBoob View Post
              I'll wait for a named source.
              Oh, 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.
              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 Post
                  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/
                  1) 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.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                    Oh, 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.
                    Of course I read the link, idiot.

                    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 Post
                      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/
                      Says who Rep. Chris Stewart? The Congress is trying to get the intel from the White House now and can still not get it because the White House briefing didn't include the Intel Agencies themselves.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by DivineOb View Post
                        1) 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.
                        She 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.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                          She 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.
                          And your disloyalty to this country is proved by your insistence that as long as Trump is "no worse" than someone else (and he's still worse since he asked Russia back into the G7) it lets him off the hook. Shameful.

                          If it really were a big deal and real, then she and congress is just as complicit in their neglect as Trump is.
                          Ok. So what? Is this only about politics for you or do you think we should care if our elected officials fail to defend our troops and instead reward those putting them in increased danger?


                          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.
                          And the failing WSJ, right? And can you clarify exactly which components you're calling "fake news"? The parts which are confirmed are already bad enough to warrant hangings on the WH lawn.

                          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 Post
                              Of course I read the link, idiot.
                              Then why all the whooping and hollering about wanting a "named source"?
                              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 Post
                                Then why all the whooping and hollering about wanting a "named source"?
                                I wrote six words on that subject. It took you twice that many words to even ask this question.

                                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 One Bad Pig  
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                53 responses
                                328 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Mountain Man  
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                25 responses
                                112 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                33 responses
                                197 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Roy
                                by Roy
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                84 responses
                                361 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post JimL
                                by JimL
                                 
                                Working...
                                X