Originally posted by Sparko
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 Mountain Man View PostWhen 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.
Comment
-
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.Last edited by DivineOb; 07-08-2020, 12:40 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by DivineOb View PostInterestingly 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.
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.The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Cow Poke View PostLook 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.
Comment
-
Originally posted by DivineOb View PostSurely you can see that you're not responding to the thrust of my post.The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Cow Poke View PostI think the "thrust of your post" is weak ---- they're saying the same things, but using editorial license to say it.
Surely you can see that that is the point I'm making.Last edited by DivineOb; 07-08-2020, 01:23 PM.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by DivineOb View PostAgain, 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.
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:The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Cow Poke View PostIt'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:Last edited by DivineOb; 07-08-2020, 01:42 PM.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by DivineOb View PostI'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.The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by Sparko View PostI don't know they were. I was just stating my opinion.
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.
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by seer, 04-21-2024, 01:11 PM
|
68 responses
407 views
0 likes
|
Last Post Today, 02:58 AM | ||
Started by seer, 04-19-2024, 02:09 PM
|
10 responses
149 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by seer
Yesterday, 06:09 AM
|
||
Started by seanD, 04-19-2024, 01:25 PM
|
2 responses
57 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by seanD
Yesterday, 04:09 PM
|
||
Started by VonTastrophe, 04-19-2024, 08:53 AM
|
21 responses
181 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by NorrinRadd
Today, 02:15 AM
|
||
Started by seer, 04-18-2024, 01:12 PM
|
37 responses
268 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Sam
Yesterday, 07:47 PM
|
Comment