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 DivineBoob View Post
    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?
    It's not about whether it's true or false but about where or not it's classified. A CNN bubble head recently made the same mistake you did when she insisted that "It's either classified, or it's true. It can't be both!"

    Richard Grenell laughed at her and said, "Yes, it can be both, because even false information can reveal sources and methods. That's why it's classified."
    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 DivineOb View Post
      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.
      Drama Queenery noted.


      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?
      What? You mean that the Taliban weren't already trying to kill our troops and our troops weren't already defending themselves?



      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?
      Nice try to move the target. I will repeat my points:

      1. If Pelosi/Schumer and crew didn't read their briefings or did read them and didn't feel it was important to mention anything at the time, they they have no business complaining about Trump doing the same thing they did. It was just an unconfirmed report. Not credible.

      2. If it was credible, then again they have no business complaining about Trump, because they should have mentioned it when they were briefed on it and they are just as guilty as Trump for sweeping it under the rug.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
        It's not about whether it's true or false but about where or not it's classified. A CNN bubble head recently made the same mistake you did when she insisted that "It's either classified, or it's true. It can't be both!"

        Richard Grenell laughed at her and said, "Yes, it can be both, because even false information can reveal sources and methods. That's why it's classified."
        And I agree with Grenell.

        But neither sources nor methods were revealed with these leaks so that doesn't apply.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
          Drama Queenery noted.
          :tipothehat:


          What? You mean that the Taliban weren't already trying to kill our troops and our troops weren't already defending themselves?
          You clearly didn't read what I wrote very closely. Notice the use of the word "increased."

          And even if we stipulate that the Russian bounties placed our troops in no additional danger how would that change things? Would that make it ok to ask Russia back into the G7? Of course not! Conspiracy to commit murder, just like obstruction of justice, doesn't have to succeed to be criminal. It simply has to be attempted.


          Nice try to move the target. I will repeat my points:

          1. If Pelosi/Schumer and crew didn't read their briefings or did read them and didn't feel it was important to mention anything at the time, they they have no business complaining about Trump doing the same thing they did. It was just an unconfirmed report. Not credible.
          Pelosi et al. didn't ask Russia back into the G7. Pelosi et al. didn't golf and hold rallies rather than make any effort to investigate this matter after it broke. Pelosi et al. haven't *to this day* remained silent and elected not to make it clear that we have the back of our troops.

          Trump and Trump alone* did those things.

          * along with most of the GOP.

          And of course throw in a "party of personal responsibility folks!" for good measure.


          2. If it was credible, then again they have no business complaining about Trump, because they should have mentioned it when they were briefed on it and they are just as guilty as Trump for sweeping it under the rug.
          And I'll repeat that if they were aware and ignored this then I have no problem calling them out. Why won't you call Trump out? Because it's all about realpolitik and judges for you.
          Last edited by DivineOb; 07-07-2020, 01:53 PM.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by DivineOb View Post
            :tipothehat:



            You clearly didn't read what I wrote very closely. Notice the use of the word "increased."

            And even if we stipulate that the Russian bounties placed our troops in no additional danger how would that change things? Would that make it ok to ask Russia back into the G7? Of course not! Conspiracy to commit murder, just like obstruction of justice, doesn't have to succeed to be criminal. It simply has to be attempted.



            Pelosi et al. didn't ask Russia back into the G7. Pelosi et al. didn't golf and hold rallies rather than make any effort to investigate this matter after it broke. Pelosi et al. haven't *to this day* remained silent and elected not to make it clear that we have the back of our troops.

            Trump and Trump alone* did those things.

            * along with most of the GOP.

            And of course throw in a "party of personal responsibility folks!" for good measure.



            And I'll repeat that if they were aware and ignored this then I have no problem calling them out. Why won't you call Trump out? Because it's all about realpolitik and judges for you.
            I just did. I said if this was a credible threat then Pelosi et al were just as GUILTY AS TRUMP.

            Personally I don't think this was a credible threat. I think it was rumor that they cannot confirm.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
              I just did. I said if this was a credible threat then Pelosi et al were just as GUILTY AS TRUMP.

              Personally I don't think this was a credible threat. I think it was rumor that they cannot confirm.
              How can it be the case that Pelosi et al. had the same information as Trump and it also be anything but a fool's errand to narrow down who the leaker(s) are?

              Comment


              • Originally posted by DivineOb View Post
                How can it be the case that Pelosi et al. had the same information as Trump and it also be anything but a fool's errand to narrow down who the leaker(s) are?
                I don't know. But I doubt it was Pelosi since she didn't seem to know about it until after the news article. Which to me means she is just as negligent as Trump, if it is credible.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                  I don't know. But I doubt it was Pelosi since she didn't seem to know about it until after the news article. Which to me means she is just as negligent as Trump, if it is credible.
                  You're begging the question of Pelosi having had access to this info before now in "roughly the same form" as it was made available to Trump. "I don't know" doesn't explain away what is a clear problem with simply blaming "all of the above" and calling it a day.

                  Incidentally, the Lincoln Project just put out an ad taking directly aim at Trump's paranoia about leaks. Never seen anything like it.

                  Comment


                  • According to here


                    THE ADMIN has intvwed people w access to the intel, and believes it has narrowed down the universe of suspects to fewer than 10 ppl.


                    That is absolutely impossible if this information was available anywhere near as widely as Rep. Chris Stewart claims. Pelosi probably has > 10 people on her staff alone.
                    Last edited by DivineOb; 07-07-2020, 03:46 PM.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                      Drama Queenery noted.
                      Hey, that's my line!
                      The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by DivineOb View Post
                        I'll wait for a named source.
                        Ya know, had you said that 500 some posts ago, this thread would be about 100 posts long and put to bed.
                        The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                        Comment


                        • And speaking of NAMED sources....

                          Top general has doubts Russian bounty program killed US troops in Afghanistan

                          Marine Corps commandant: Bounty claims ‘were news to me’

                          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.

                          “You see a lot of indicators, many of them are troubling many of them you act on. But, but in this case there just there wasn't enough there I sent the intelligence guys back to continue to dig on it, and I believe they're continuing to dig right now, but I just didn't see enough there to tell me that the circuit was closed in that regard.”

                          He added that force protection levels in Afghanistan are always high “whether the Russians are paying the Taliban or not." McKenzie said the insurgent group has always focused its attacks on U.S. forces in Afghanistan, though that has ceased under the current U.S. peace agreement with the Taliban.

                          “Over the past several years, the Taliban have done their level best to carry out operations against us, so nothing is practically changed on the ground in terms of force protection, because we have a very high force protection standard now, and that force protection standard's going to continue into the future,” said McKenzie.


                          Pretty much what I've been saying all along, and, as JimL would say - he AGREES with me!
                          The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by DivineBoob View Post
                            ...neither sources nor methods were revealed with these leaks so that doesn't apply.
                            You sure about that? Leaks like this reveal specifically who we are monitoring and specifically what sort of information we are able to glean from them. That's a big deal. And who knows what other information has been leaked to the media that hasn't made it's way into print but is no longer stored securely and is easily accessible to hostile parties.
                            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 Post
                              According to here


                              THE ADMIN has intvwed people w access to the intel, and believes it has narrowed down the universe of suspects to fewer than 10 ppl.


                              That is absolutely impossible if this information was available anywhere near as widely as Rep. Chris Stewart claims. Pelosi probably has > 10 people on her staff alone.
                              Like you really know whether or not it's possible.
                              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
                                You sure about that? Leaks like this reveal specifically who we are monitoring and specifically what sort of information we are able to glean from them. That's a big deal. And who knows what other information has been leaked to the media that hasn't made it's way into print but is no longer stored securely and is easily accessible to hostile parties.
                                Ok, well you know what the leaks claim. What sources and methods do you think were revealed by the allegedly false leaks?

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by little_monkey, 03-27-2024, 04:19 PM
                                16 responses
                                157 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post One Bad Pig  
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                53 responses
                                400 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Mountain Man  
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                25 responses
                                114 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                33 responses
                                198 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Roy
                                by Roy
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                84 responses
                                373 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post JimL
                                by JimL
                                 
                                Working...
                                X