Russian Bounty on U.S. military in Afghanistan.

[DivineOb]

You are confusing MM and me again.

? No I didn't. But you're welcome to answer my question if you'd like.

[DivineOb]

When it was revealed that Peliso had access to the same information as the President, she quickly changed her tune to asking why the intelligence agencies didn't make more effort to bring it to anybody's attention.

Let's stipulate that everything you said is true. Don't you think that points to a fundamental flaw in how our nation is processing intelligence if something like this can go essentially undetected at the same time as we're offering a highly coveted invitation back into the G7 to Russia? Doesn't that concern you?

[DivineOb]

Interestingly it appears that CP's ABC link on the general's comments left out some details (no shade towards CP intended).

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2020/07/07/p...mpression=true

"The intelligence wasn't proved to me. It was proved enough to worry me. It wasn't proved enough that I'd take it to a court of law. That's often true in battlefield intelligence," McKenzie said, according to a transcript provided by the Defense Department.

McKenzie said Tuesday, "I'm very familiar with this material, and I'm a theater commander and I've had an opportunity to look at it. I found it very worrisome."

"I just didn't find that there was a causative link there. It worried me, and we take extreme force protection measures all the time in Afghanistan," McKenzie said.

I'm really puzzled why ABC left this stuff out.

[Cow Poke]

Interestingly it appears that CP's ABC link on the general's comments left out some details (no shade towards CP intended).

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2020/07/07/p...mpression=true

"The intelligence wasn't proved to me. It was proved enough to worry me. It wasn't proved enough that I'd take it to a court of law. That's often true in battlefield intelligence," McKenzie said, according to a transcript provided by the Defense Department.

McKenzie said Tuesday, "I'm very familiar with this material, and I'm a theater commander and I've had an opportunity to look at it. I found it very worrisome."

"I just didn't find that there was a causative link there. It worried me, and we take extreme force protection measures all the time in Afghanistan," McKenzie said.

I'm really puzzled why ABC left this stuff out.

Look at my post http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post759922

And, in it...

The top U.S. general in the Middle East said Tuesday he was aware of the intelligence of a Russian bounty program targeting U.S. troops in Afghanistan, but while he said he found it “worrisome,” he said he did not believe it was tied to actual U.S. military deaths on the battlefield.

“I found it very worrisome, I just didn't find that there was a causative link there," Gen. Kenneth McKenzie, the commander of U.S. Central Command, said in an interview with a small number of reporters.

‘The intel (intelligence) case wasn't proved to me -- it wasn't proved enough that I'd take it to a court of law -- and you know that's often true in battlefield intelligence,” said McKenzie.

[DivineOb]

Look at my post http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post759922

And, in it...

The top U.S. general in the Middle East said Tuesday he was aware of the intelligence of a Russian bounty program targeting U.S. troops in Afghanistan, but while he said he found it “worrisome,” he said he did not believe it was tied to actual U.S. military deaths on the battlefield.

“I found it very worrisome, I just didn't find that there was a causative link there," Gen. Kenneth McKenzie, the commander of U.S. Central Command, said in an interview with a small number of reporters.

‘The intel (intelligence) case wasn't proved to me -- it wasn't proved enough that I'd take it to a court of law -- and you know that's often true in battlefield intelligence,” said McKenzie.

Surely you can see that you're not responding to the thrust of my post.

[Cow Poke]

Surely you can see that you're not responding to the thrust of my post.

I think the "thrust of your post" is weak ---- they're saying the same things, but using editorial license to say it.

[DivineOb]

I think the "thrust of your post" is weak ---- they're saying the same things, but using editorial license to say it.

The headline of the CNN article is this "Top US general says Russian bounty intelligence 'wasn't proved' but 'proved enough to worry me'". The reason I even clicked on the article (since I rarely read CNN) is because it included a fragment which wasn't included in the ABC story ("Proved enough to worry me"). That fragment is intentionally omitted in the ABC article. That fragment alone completely blows up MM's confused babbling about "medium confidence" being meaningless. That's the thrust of my post.

Surely you can see that that is the point I'm making.

[Sparko]

? No I didn't. But you're welcome to answer my question if you'd like.

I was the one who said Pelosi had the information previously and I did answer you. I just thought maybe you were confusing MM and me.

[Cow Poke]

Again, I don't think you're stupid (but feel free to testify against yourself). So surely you can see that that is the point I'm making.

It's always such a blessing when you accidentally fall back into your angry little man routine.

So, lemme get this straight..... two sources quote the General, but one of them omits, or characterizes something differently, and CNN is, therefore, absolutely correct.

‘The intel (intelligence) case wasn't proved to me -- it wasn't proved enough that I'd take it to a court of law -- and you know that's often true in battlefield intelligence,” said McKenzie.

All you're doing is proving my belief that journalism is VERY partisan. :shurg:

[DivineOb]

It's always such a blessing when you accidentally fall back into your angry little man routine.

I'm doing the opposite but you do you I guess. ETA: I'm inviting you *not* to make yourself look dumb by arguing below your level. If you insist that "convenient confusion" is the way to go I can't stop you but don't think I don't see through it.

So, lemme get this straight..... two sources quote the General, but one of them omits, or characterizes something differently, and CNN is, therefore, absolutely correct.

Surely you aren't this dumb, CP. Yes, CNN is clearly correct that the general said the words which ABC didn't include. Are you really disputing that the general said those additional words?

‘The intel (intelligence) case wasn't proved to me -- it wasn't proved enough that I'd take it to a court of law -- and you know that's often true in battlefield intelligence,” said McKenzie.

All you're doing is proving my belief that journalism is VERY partisan. :shurg:

Anything to avoid admitting that the "medium confidence" gambit has been destroyed I guess.

[DivineOb]

I was the one who said Pelosi had the information previously and I did answer you. I just thought maybe you were confusing MM and me.

MM did too.

In any case, how were Pelosi and Schumer's staffs eliminated as possible sources of the leak?

[Sparko]

MM did too.

In any case, how were Pelosi and Schumer's staffs eliminated as possible sources of the leak?

I don't know they were. I was just stating my opinion.

[Cow Poke]

I'm doing the opposite but you do you I guess. ETA: I'm inviting you *not* to make yourself look dumb by arguing below your level....

You're a hoot.

[DivineOb]

You're a hoot.

I aim to please. I also accept your concession that the full quotes from the general destroy the feeble "medium confidence" argument you and your [long time male acquaintance] MM threw out.

[DivineOb]

I don't know they were. I was just stating my opinion.

Ok.

The point is the WH claims that fewer than 10 can be source of the leak. If Pelosi and Schumer had access to the intel then it's not possible to reduce the number of possible leakers to just 10 since they easily could have asked their staff to pass the information along to the press (and Chris Stevens (Stewart?) makes it sound like there are more than 10 *congresspeople* with access to the intel). So the WH is either lying about how widely available this intel was available or they're lying about having narrowed down the universe of possible leakers.

Since you guys are married to the concept that "everyone was in the loop" surely you'll agree that it's impossible to reduce the number of possible leakers to anything close to 10 people in that circumstance.

Anyway, I think it is far more likely the WH is more likely to have narrowed down the possible leakers than the intel really having been just splattered everywhere. The idea that something like this would have gone unnoticed by the Democrats just 3 weeks after the impeachment acquittal is just ludicrous.