Someone can feel free to make one, I was just on my phone and didn't want to try and copy/paste the entire article.urbanhack said:How does this not have its own thread??
Someone can feel free to make one, I was just on my phone and didn't want to try and copy/paste the entire article.urbanhack said:How does this not have its own thread??
I think it's useful or helpful to try to think of normative explanations why or how this may not be a big deal. It could have been a report based on low or no confidence. Possible.I'm not convinced this is a scandal. I hope we learn more about how credible the intel was.
honestly, I don't think it's that big of a deal in the grand scheme. It's about on the level of Benghazi. Actually, I think Benghazi is a pretty good allegory: here we had Hillary mis-characterizing an uprising as a spontaneous attack, a response to a youtube video. No one believed that it wasn't the administration downplaying the event, due to an upcoming election. At it's core, that's what the Benghazi was all about - the house Republicans smelled blood in the water and went after Hillary to make her (and Obama) look bad in the upcoming election.I'm not convinced this is a scandal. I hope we learn more about how credible the intel was.
Was Obama previously briefed about a possible attack in Benghazi?moleculo said:
It's about on the level of Benghazi. Actually, I think Benghazi is a pretty good allegory
Need to get started with the "Even if true what is the crime? You need an actual crime to ...".So the White House is holding a briefing for House members this afternoon about this whole Russian bounty thing.
That is. Republican House members only.
Nothing fishy at all here, right?
Gotta get the talking points in order. Everyone fall in line.Need to get started with the "Even if true what is the crime? You need an actual crime to ...".So the White House is holding a briefing for House members this afternoon about this whole Russian bounty thing.
That is. Republican House members only.
Nothing fishy at all here, right?
I don't know whether to laugh or cry, so I just gave you a thinking emoji like.
This is an example of moral relativism rearing it’s ugly head. Our presence in Afghanistan may have been a strategic mistake but we did not come as conquerors, and we never treated the Afghan people as subjects. The former Soviet Union did both. We were right to help out those who fought against them. It was morally justifiable to help Afghan rebels to kill Soviet soldiers in 1980. It is morally reprehensible for Putin to pay the Taliban to kill our soldiers. There is no hypocrisy here, no double standard whatsoever.@dwdavison
Assuming this Russian bounty story is true, and fwiw the sourcing seems very thin at this point, I for one am shocked at the notion that a nation would arm and incentivize Afghan extremists to kill the soldiers of a rival nation. Such depravity has never before been seen, surely.
Glad to see that Zbigniew Brzezinski’s daughter and I are on the same page here https://twitter.com/davidklion/status/1276981641794203649?s=21
Fwiw this is an explanation of possible motive for what Russia/GRU is accused of doing. I also don't think it's novel either to suggest that revanchist, nationalist types in the Kremlin have felt more than a slight desire for revenge as to what happened in the 80s. The claims here are totally in keeping with Russian/RIS/GRU behavior under Putin but what you're stating here is just further reason to believe it's going on.the notion that a nation would arm and incentivize Afghan extremists to kill the soldiers of a rival nation.
Which btw raises this ol' nugget from the reservoir of 'Things Trump Says that Only Would be Heard in the Kremlin.'Fwiw this is an explanation of possible motive for what Russia/GRU is accused of doing. I also don't think it's novel either to suggest that revanchist, nationalist types in the Kremlin have felt more than a slight desire for revenge as to what happened in the 80s. The claims here are totally in keeping with Russian/RIS/GRU behavior under Putin but what you're stating here is just further reason to believe it's going on.the notion that a nation would arm and incentivize Afghan extremists to kill the soldiers of a rival nation.
VidyoIn a broad attempt to justify withdrawing American troops from Afghanistan during a Cabinet meeting Wednesday, Trump ended up saying the Soviet Union was "right" to invade Afghanistan in 1979. According to the president's version of history, the Soviet Union turned into Russia because it "went bankrupt fighting in Afghanistan."
The "war on terror" was contrived to be a neverending war for war profiteers. For 19 years, the US has had no idea what its mission is, who its friends or enemies are, or why it is still in Afghanistan.This is an example of moral relativism rearing it’s ugly head. Our presence in Afghanistan may have been a strategic mistake but we did not come as conquerors, and we never treated the Afghan people as subjects. The former Soviet Union did both. We were right to help out those who fought against them. It was morally justifiable to help Afghan rebels to kill Soviet soldiers in 1980. It is morally reprehensible for Putin to pay the Taliban to kill our soldiers. There is no hypocrisy here, no double standard whatsoever.
This is being contradicted everywhere: the Wall Street Journal, NBC News, Associated Press, the world press- they’re all reporting that there was a major meeting at the NSC to discuss this and that it was considered corroborated. I’m not saying your CBS reporter is wrong (how would I know?) but she certainly seems to be on a ledge by herself.Catherine Herridge @CBS_Herridge
DEVELOPING: An intelligence official with direct knowledge tells CBS News there was an intel collection report and "NSA assesses Report does not match well established and verifiiable Taliban and Haqqani practices" + "lack sufficient reporting to corroborate any links."
The official said the inteligence collection report reached "low levels" NSC but did not go further, not briefed POTUS, or VP because it was deemed "uncorroborated" and "dissent intelligence community."
Republicans under Trump have been shutting out elected democrats for years. Is this normal for the party that holds the WH? Nothing is normal under Trump so I'm guessing it isn't but thought I would at least ask.So the White House is holding a briefing for House members this afternoon about this whole Russian bounty thing.
That is. Republican House members only.
Nothing fishy at all here, right?
Of course it is normal. Democrat should out Republicans just as much as Republicans shut out Democrats.Republicans under Trump have been shutting out elected democrats for years. Is this normal for the party that holds the WH? Nothing is normal under Trump so I'm guessing it isn't but thought I would at least ask.
Ugh, no. One briefing where everyone got the same information at once would resolve this. Doing it this way immediately turns it into a jabbing contest.Of course it is normal. Democrat should out Republicans just as much as Republicans shut out Democrats.
After all the nonsense and lies the left has pulled over the last 3 1/2 years I would shut them out too.
I mean, I agree with you in principle. but how can you even trust the Democrats after all the stuff they've done the last three and a half years?Ugh, no. One briefing where everyone got the same information at once would resolve this. Doing it this way immediately turns it into a jabbing contest.
Say you really believe that, and I'm sure you do - if you're a partisan or moderate Republican, either way, and if you're interested in the correct version of events being reported out, then it's in your best interests to be in the same room as the Dems when they are briefed. This way, you have no idea what was really said in that room.I mean, I agree with you in principle. but how can you even trust the Democrats after all the stuff they've done the last three and a half years?
They are duplicitous, lying and conniving. They'll do or say anything to get Trump even if it's lies, half truths and out of context quotes.
So Obama and Bush both had briefings while not allowing the other party to attend?Of course it is normal. Democrat should out Republicans just as much as Republicans shut out Democrats.
After all the nonsense and lies the left has pulled over the last 3 1/2 years I would shut them out too.
What if your entire theory of the case is wrong?I mean, I agree with you in principle. but how can you even trust the Democrats after all the stuff they've done the last three and a half years?
They are duplicitous, lying and conniving. They'll do or say anything to get Trump even if it's lies, half truths and out of context quotes.
Sorry, but I just don't see it that way.What if your entire theory of the case is wrong?
The way I see it, almost all of the accusations Democrats have lodged against President Trump over the the last 3 and a half years with regard to Russia have had a great deal of credibility. Though some of the evidence was lacking, there was enough there, plus a pattern of behavior that would be inexplicable otherwise. And now here we are again.
No, but not doubting it occurred.Anyone remember when Iran was offering bounties to the Taliban in the Obama era?
The putative defenses on this thing are all over the place. The Herridge reporting IIRC was the official saying that it didn't merit credibility and here it's suggested that it's normal for the Taliban to take money in support of their attacks on the US from someone on the ground. - We've had Iran sanctioned, we've had Iran down as a state sponsor of foreign terror, heck we just assassinated their leading general because he helped support a foreign militia that killed on of our contractors and we risked war over that.Anyone remember when Iran was offering bounties to the Taliban in the Obama era?
No, he gave them money out in the open.No, but not doubting it occurred.
I also definitely don't remember Obama having a myriad of shady, undisclosed business interests in/with Iran during his 2 terms, nor do I recall him behaving with deference repeatedly toward Iranian leaders. Did those things happen and my memory just sucks?
It's not a defense. Just wanted people to know Obama gave money to a country that confirmed paid bounties on American lives.The putative defenses on this thing are all over the place. The Herridge reporting IIRC was the official saying that it didn't merit credibility and here it's suggested that it's normal for the Taliban to take money in support of their attacks on the US from someone on the ground. - We've had Iran sanctioned, we've had Iran down as a state sponsor of foreign terror, heck we just assassinated their leading general because he helped support a foreign militia that killed on of our contractors and we risked war over that.
I know you don’t. But you should probably keep an open mind and I will as well.Sorry, but I just don't see it that way.
Lots of assumptions and hearsay and outright lies that were presented as facts.
You keep making claims...you keep doing so without ever providing a single credible link or source for any of it. Please back up the claims that the democrats did all this too.Sorry, but I just don't see it that way.
Lots of assumptions and hearsay and outright lies that were presented as facts.
You mean their money...as part of a deal Trump ripped up. How is that working out?No, he gave them money out in the open.
The nuclear deal where we returned their own money.When did this happen?
I doubt it! It will be like everything else embarrassing or vaguely controversial and kept classified until no one is left to care. Except for that two week period when the national archives mistakenly believed that expiration dates established by law actually meant something.These issues aren’t questions of political ideology, at least they shouldn’t be. They are questions of fact. Someday we will likely know all the facts behind this.
if it was in the PDB, he most likely didn’t read or hear itWhat a shocking development. I don't think anyone could see this one coming -
BREAKING: Undercutting WH claims that Trump was never briefed on suspected Russian bounty operation & info was not solid enough to tell him about, it was in his written briefing (PDB) 4 months ago - likely Feb 27 - & was circulated broadly in IC on May 4.
Link
This will be the defense.if it was in the PDB, he most likely didn’t read or hear it
Does it really matter?https://twitter.com/jpacedc/status/1277792243055804417?s=21
WASHINGTON (AP) AP sources: White House was aware of intelligence on Russian bounties on US troops in 2019
Trump supporters gonna totally ignore this or just shrug it off as fake news?
He was too preoccupied being impeached####. Try to spin this trump fans.