Discussion in 'GatorNana's Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by VAg8r1, Jun 26, 2020.
not until he takes his last breath...
The DOD didn't debunk anything. It said the DOD has no "corroborating evidence" to "validate the recent allegations found in open-source reports." It's not even clear the DOD knew about the intelligence before it was published in the NYT. It may have been kept close to the vest by the Intelligence Community/White House and not communicated to the DOD. Which itself would be a huge problem. But even if the DOD did know, what it means by "corroborating evidence" sufficient to to "validate" the reports is very vague, and and could mean almost anything. From the reports being a rumor to very likely true. The DOD gave no indication of its confidence in the reports, only that they are not fully "validated."
The DOD also said nothing about the president's knowledge of the bounties. Only the White House and its attached political appointees have made the claim that the president wasn't briefed -- the same folks who have said they have "no obligation to be honest." But again, even assuming they're telling the truth, they are being deliberately vague in their claims. When they say they president was "not briefed" do they mean that the president was never given a memo or intelligence report alerting him to the issue? Or do they mean it was never discussed in his presence? Or do they mean no one sat down with him and drew out the issues with crayons? No one knows.
Debunked my butt.
Whoa, I get you want a seat at the big boy table, but your links don't say what you think they do.
The last Republican presidential mistake invaded Iraq on faulty WMD intel, displaced it's legitimate ruler (horrible human being aside), cost the US an estimated $1.1 TRILLION dollars along with thousands of US lives.
To think Trump either wasn't or shouldn't have been advised of the Russian bounty is pathetic. Perhaps if Trump had actually tried to work with US intelligence assets instead of constantly berating them, there would be a freer flow of information. Ever since those intelligence agencies confirmed Russian interference in the 2016 election, he let his ego and paranoia get in the way of that flow of information to the continuing detriment of US interests. The fact he once again needs Putin's help in an election only compounds the problem.
If Obama had such mistrust of US intelligence organizations, republicans would still be "desperately seeking Bin Laden."
Bottom line: Trump either knew or should have known of the Russian bounty. Even if it hadn't been corroborated, he should have been made aware of the allegations and directed US intelligence agencies to fully investigate it.
the point that you cannot seem to grasp is multiple agencies (DoD who is responsible for our troops) cannot and have not corroborated any such claims. But hey, let’s trust NYT Anonymous source lmao. They have a good track record (they don’t... sarcasm).
I’ll never understand how both Dems and Pubs refuse to be opened minded on anything with the opposite side.
So NYT has an anonymous source meanwhile you have multiple intelligence agencies stating that there is no evidence in which the president would not be briefed on it.
I can see why some many posters from years ago stopped coming here. You all have lost your damn minds.
There is no way of having a reasonable conversation with some of you.
Oh and by the way, now you want Trump to act on a claim that has not been supported by multiple agencies while you bring up Bush acting on premature and poor intelligence. Got it makes sense....
The big boy table? On an anonymous message board? Who do we apply to for this honor?
That is called "knowing how to do your job". But I forgot, talent wins over experience. Dude is incompetent and appears to demand people tell him what he wants to hear, and if one tells him what he doesn't want to hear, regardless of truth and facts, "your'e fired".
And wait, there's more:
"As early as 2016, U.S. intelligence officials were receiving credible reports that the Russian government was funding the Taliban and supplying them with “thousands” of weapons for its war against U.S. and coalition soldiers in Afghanistan, current and former U.S. intelligence sources tell Yahoo News.
The intelligence hardened over time, and, by 2018, senior U.S. military commanders were briefing senior officials back in Washington that the Russians were encouraging Taliban fighters to kill U.S. service members.
Senior U.S. generals first publicly discussed Russian support to the Taliban in 2017. Those earlier reports have taken on new relevance in the wake of a New York Times story — since confirmed by several other news outlets — that U.S. intelligence officials believe that by last year Russian military intelligence was actually offering bounties for the killing of American troops and that U.S. troops may have died as a result."
Officials: Russian bounty reports follow years of Kremlin support to Taliban
That’s not really responsive to any of my points. Notice I didn’t say anything about taking the anonymous sources at their word. Why don’t you re read and try again if you really claim to be open minded.
For a case of andyGator I'll put in a good word for you
BBC reporting that the liberal rag known as the Wall Street Journal states that trump received written briefings on the bounties.
Sounds like pretty much everybody in the WH knew, except Trump.
Texted my little brother about this whole thing. He was on both sides the intel chain throughout his army career, gathering intelligence on the ground with the 5th Special Forces Group in Somalia and central Asia, then in the Pentagon as an intelligence analyst on the joint staff from 2001 to 2004. He presented intelligence briefs to the Joint Chiefs almost every day. The more urgent the information in those, the more likely it would go to the president. Nothing was presented to the president that wasn't fully vetted by George Tenet, NSA director Michael Hayden and their staffs. His theory is that it wasn't presented to Trump at all because much of the intel about Russia is not passed on to the Trump for fear that he will share with Putin. With regards to communication with other heads of state, the president is considered a national security risk.
Hey man, where's my invite?
This thought came to me as well, as I recalled the press reports of top intelligence officers holding back sensitive stuff they were afraid Trump would pass on to Putin. What a surreal situation.
It's quite possible that happened here. This information *was* reportedly in the written briefing (in multiple briefings), but it's pretty well established Trump doesn't read those. I'd love to have a video tape or recording of one of these Trump briefings just to see what goes down, how these people actually have to prevent information to this guy. It must be quite a show. LOL.
No, I think the problem is the president was briefed (though he - gasp! - lies and says he wasn't), and does nothing to protect these lives you say you served to protect. Perhaps it wasn't completely verified, but intelligence is never 100% verifiable. But, there was enough there to have warranted the president warning Russia and assuring the American people, especially the families of soldiers, that he would do all within his power to protect American lives.
He did none of that, yet people like you come on here and defend him, which is utterly disgraceful in my opinion. I wonder if you ever served in the military as I did, or have loved ones in Afghanistan. I suspect not or else your attitude would be completely different. If I'm wrong, then your attitude is curious.
They have squashed nothing. In fact, after being briefed by the WH (democrats NOT invited), Congresswoman Cheney (R, Wyoming) came out with some pretty strong language for Putin. And why do you suppose the separate briefing for the Democrats had no one from the intelligence agencies there? Don't you think the WH would want them to tell the Democrats that there was nothing there if there was nothing there? The answers are obvious to any who will look. Check out my signature.
"Corroborate" is a term of art. I doubt it is used in the intelligence field as a basis for deciding whether to inform the president. I think analysts look for other information which tends to lend credence to what may have started out as a rumor/plant. There need not be corroboration in the legal sense, i.e., in the sense to make the rumor/plant a fact. From all I've read, there was enough there to take to the president, and I've no doubt whatsoever it was. Why he remains silent is as unfathomable as why he asked SCOTUS last Friday night to declare the rest of the ACA unconstitutional in the middle of a pandemic.