Russian Bounty on U.S. military in Afghanistan.

[Cow Poke]

Yup. It's a good cartoon.

Nope.

[Mountain Man]

As laid out here Ratfink is dishonestly representing the Russian bounty intelligence.



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.

[DivineOb]

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.

[Mountain Man]

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?

[DivineOb]

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.

[Mountain Man]

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.

[Sparko]

Why did Pelosi ignore the briefing too?

https://www.breitbart.com/clips/2020...several-years/

[DivineOb]

Why did Pelosi ignore the briefing too?

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.

[DivineOb]

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.

[JimL]

Why did Pelosi ignore the briefing too?

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.

[Sparko]

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.

[DivineOb]

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?

[DivineOb]

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...

[Mountain Man]

Of course I read the link, idiot.

Then why all the whooping and hollering about wanting a "named source"?

[DivineOb]

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.