Russia offered bounties to kill american troops. (3 Viewers)

Savage said:

Sooooo....

Click to expand...

Well that tells you just how much of an asset he has become to other interests.

That should tell all of us that just how untrustworthy our president has become to everyone involved.

this AP article confirms claims that Trump was briefed on the matter and was presented with potential responses. But the White House did and has done nothing.

it addresses “green on blue” instances and intelligence and cash found By Navy SEALS who believed it was part of a bounty in addition to increased contact between Taliban and Russia.

The intelligence officials told the AP that Trump was briefed on the bounty matter earlier this year; Trump denied that, tweeting Sunday neither he nor Vice President Mike Pence had been briefed. Trump tweeted Sunday night he was just told intelligence officials didn’t report the information to him because they didn’t find it credible.

Click to expand...

Trump is addressing select members of Congress today on the matter.

edit: Pelosi is demanding a full House briefing.

Ayo said:

GOP lawmakers urge action after Russia-Afghanistan briefing

WASHINGTON (AP) — Eight Republican lawmakers attended a White House briefing Monday about explosive allegations that Russia secretly offered bounties to Taliban-linked militants for killing American troops in Afghanistan — intelligence the White House insisted the president himself had not been full

apnews.com

this AP article confirms claims that Trump was briefed on the matter and was presented with potential responses. But the White House did and has done nothing.

it addresses “green on blue” instances and intelligence and cash found By Navy SEALS who believed it was part of a bounty in addition to increased contact between Taliban and Russia.



Trump is addressing select members of Congress today on the matter.

edit: Pelosi is demanding a full House briefing.

Click to expand...

Unnamed intelligence sources in an article isn't confirmation of anything especially in regards to Russia.

SaintForLife said:

Unnamed intelligence sources in an article isn't confirmation of anything especially in regards to Russia.

Click to expand...

The fact that our political institutions have been and continue to be at the mercy of "unnamed intelligence sources" and whatnot is a scary thing. The fact that we have already gone to war because of it makes it weirder that so many continue to buy into it.

JimEverett said:

The fact that our political institutions have been and continue to be at the mercy of "unnamed intelligence sources" and whatnot is a scary thing. The fact that we have already gone to war because of it makes it weirder that so many continue to buy into it.

Click to expand...

I agree and especially and considering how many unnamed intelligence sources on Russiagate turned out to be complete BS.

Here are a few examples of the New York Times unnamed intelligence sources being BS:

JimEverett said:

The fact that our political institutions have been and continue to be at the mercy of "unnamed intelligence sources" and whatnot is a scary thing. The fact that we have already gone to war because of it makes it weirder that so many continue to buy into it.

Click to expand...

How are our political institutions at the mercy of unnamed intelligence sources? Isn't that a journalism issue?

LA - L.A. said:

How are our political institutions at the mercy of unnamed intelligence sources? Isn't that a journalism issue?

Click to expand...

We went to war largely due to intelligence sources, we had a investigation that occupied a tremendous amount of political resources due to pressure resulting from unnamed intelligence sources, there are other examples of more limited impact, but still troublesome - so I think it is fair to say.

JimEverett said:

We went to war largely due to intelligence sources, we had a investigation that occupied a tremendous amount of political resources due to pressure resulting from unnamed intelligence sources, there are other examples of more limited impact, but still troublesome - so I think it is fair to say.

Click to expand...

Those intelligence sources were all working on behalf of the administration, not against it. The administration used those unnamed sources to sell the war to the UN and the American people. The administration was in no way at the mercy of any unnamed sources.

Both the President and Congress have oversight over the intelligence communities, so I don't see how our political institutions are at the mercy of unnamed intelligence sources.

that twitter feed sure is... uhhh..... something

It claims, in its header, to cover: "TV news, Cable news ratings and sharp opinion covering Fox News, MSNBC, CNN, Fox Business and CNBC."

The implication is that these are covered equally, fairly. But should be changed to "Praising FOX, Criticizing Everyone Else" Then they add:

"Retweeted by President Trump."

What follows is simply one clip after another that either congratulates a right-wing pundit for {insert melodramatic verb synonym with destroy}-ing {insert liberal website or politician or journalist or media outlet} - OR - criticizing, demeaning someone for holding Trump, Pence et al accountable or criticizing them.

I wouldn't trust an edited clip of an edited clip that has gone through two right-wing filters to prop up an argument I had.

JimEverett said:

The fact that our political institutions have been and continue to be at the mercy of "unnamed intelligence sources" and whatnot is a scary thing. The fact that we have already gone to war because of it makes it weirder that so many continue to buy into it.

Click to expand...

What I've bought into at this point is that the Trump administration appears to be dissembling over yet another major story involving foreign policy. The stakes are particularly high here because of the loss of American lives that are directly linked to this intelligence. We are entitled to demand a coherent explanation from this administration as to what it knew or didn't know about this intelligence, and why no action has been taken thus far. We should also require the administration to corroborate its own explanations, because this president is a recidivist liar with a history of public and private subservience to Putin and Russia. Of course, any major foreign policy decisions should be based on a sober assessment of the credibility of such intelligence, and we don't have the full details yet. But at this point it is far less weird to be alarmed by this reporting than it is to accept this president's explanation at face value.

I don’t know if we’ll ever find out the true reason behind Trumps attitude and actions regarding Russia

I don’t like whataboutism And a close kissing cousin is whatifism

But can you imagine if this story broke during the Obama administration and if he had responded the exact same way

At least one Fox News anchor would have had an on air heart attack with outrage
==================

At the heart of the Trump administration resides “a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma”: What is it with President Trump and Russia? Why does the “America First” president so often put Russia first?

That question has surfaced yet again after the New York Times first reported that a Russian military intelligence unit had paid bounties to the Taliban to kill U.S. troops in Afghanistan. The Post reported that those bounties had resulted in the deaths of Americans.

A normal president would have canceled his golf outing and made clear that there would be hell to pay if the reports are true. Not Trump. Instead, he lashed out at the news media, denying that the intelligence community had briefed him on its findings, as the Times and other publications had reported.

Unfortunately, it’s hard to credit anything said by a president who has lied to or misled the public more than 19,000 times............

The moose said:

Well that tells you just how much of an asset he has become to other interests.

That should tell all of us that just how untrustworthy our president has become to everyone involved.

Click to expand...

I think it tells us more than that....

The NSC, according to those tweets has not found the report about the Russian bounties in their files, yet the administration is saying that they were not briefed on it because it wasn't found to be credible.

Why is the NSC saying that there is nothing in their files? Why aren't they saying that the reports had not (or have not) been confirmed?

There's something very very wrong going on here.

There's a tweet for this.

Ayo said:

that twitter feed sure is... uhhh..... something

It claims, in its header, to cover: "TV news, Cable news ratings and sharp opinion covering Fox News, MSNBC, CNN, Fox Business and CNBC."

The implication is that these are covered equally, fairly. But should be changed to "Praising FOX, Criticizing Everyone Else" Then they add:

"Retweeted by President Trump."

What follows is simply one clip after another that either congratulates a right-wing pundit for {insert melodramatic verb synonym with destroy}-ing {insert liberal website or politician or journalist or media outlet} - OR - criticizing, demeaning someone for holding Trump, Pence et al accountable or criticizing them.

I wouldn't trust an edited clip of an edited clip that has gone through two right-wing filters to prop up an argument I had.

Click to expand...

I searched on Twitter for New York Times and Russia and that video came up. I posted it to show a few examples of how wrong many of the unnamed intelligence sources have been in regards to Russia and the New York Times.

Rather than address the point about how often the unnamed intelligence sources have been wrong in regards to Russia you focused on TV News HQ. I'm guessing that's easier for you to do than acknowledge how untrustworthy the unanmed intelligence sources are in regards to Russia.

Optimus Prime said:

I don’t know if we’ll ever find out the true reason behind Trumps attitude and actions regarding Russia

I don’t like whataboutism And a close kissing cousin is whatifism

But can you imagine if this story broke during the Obama administration and if he had responded the exact same way

At least one Fox News anchor would have had an on air heart attack with outrage
==================

At the heart of the Trump administration resides “a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma”: What is it with President Trump and Russia? Why does the “America First” president so often put Russia first?

That question has surfaced yet again after the New York Times first reported that a Russian military intelligence unit had paid bounties to the Taliban to kill U.S. troops in Afghanistan. The Post reported that those bounties had resulted in the deaths of Americans.

A normal president would have canceled his golf outing and made clear that there would be hell to pay if the reports are true. Not Trump. Instead, he lashed out at the news media, denying that the intelligence community had briefed him on its findings, as the Times and other publications had reported.

Unfortunately, it’s hard to credit anything said by a president who has lied to or misled the public more than 19,000 times............

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/06/29/america-first-president-keeps-putting-russia-first/

Click to expand...

Speaking of Obama, he was right when he called out Romney for saying Russia was our biggest geopolitical threat. I wonder why that changed all of a sudden in 2016.

SaintForLife said:

I searched on Twitter for New York Times and Russia and that video came up. I posted it to show a few examples of how wrong many of the unnamed intelligence sources have been in regards to Russia and the New York Times.

Rather than address the point about how often the unnamed intelligence sources have been wrong in regards to Russia you focused on TV News HQ. I'm guessing that's easier for you to do than acknowledge how untrustworthy the unanmed intelligence sources are in regards to Russia.

Click to expand...

I am not going to speculate on the nature of something that journalism in a free press country relies on. I tend to stay silent on matters I know little about.

if my concern is, “I am interested in knowing how often ‘unnamed sources are wrong’ in matters of foreign policy” then I am going to do more than a simple google search and grab the first hit.

and if my first hit is something that is as compromised as your source is, based on the search algorithm tailored to my search histories, I’m *definitely* going to keep looking. Because that twitter feed should have alarms going off in your head and relying on it to help prop up your point is detrimental to your argument.

and it also undermines your principles re: “media manipulation” because it’s been manipulated twice with an obvious bias.

but I am not going to stop there. I would try and find out how often these “sources” are correct. I am not naive in thinking they are all above reproach or beyond question. But if they are right a helluva lot more than they are wrong, then I’m going to be careful to impugn them, categorically.

as a human being and researcher and practitioner I try to avoid essentializing

Additionally, I would take what I’ve learned generally and apply it to this case. And I would try and see how many different instances were cited and sources are included. In this particular case, it seems to be several of each across several months.

I would also consider the track record of the person who doth protest too much. In this case, it is Trump. There is an established pattern or habitual lies, necessary self-preservation, and perpetual, egostistical self-absorption. This is where Trumps constant lying does him no favors, and he has said he doesn’t read, and his attendance in briefings is sporadic with reported inattentiveness.

so, do I simply say “unnamed sources” equals default veracity?

No. Far from it.

and if I happen not to be particularly inclined to dialogue with someone whose standards and choices are, in contrast, driven by partisan convenience, well, that’s my choice, isn’t it?

I said a few days ago that I’d prefer to pass on the prospect of a futile posting back and forth and time has only served as proof, validating that I felt I made the right decision for how I’d rather spend my time on these boards.

As for this specific accusation, your assumption that it was driven by an attempt to evade the integrity, or lack thereof, of the “unnamed sources” is utterly incorrect.

I will add that personally I believe he got a briefing on a memo or something but didn’t read it. I have no inside information. It just feels like this is too big not to have been passed on. And, like I said above, he always talks about how he doesn’t read and his staff has mentioned how disinclined he is to read what they put in front of him unless it is very short and/or complimentary.

edit: well I am now seeing reporting on my twitter feed where people are claiming he was given the info months ago

Ayo said:

I will add that personally I believe he got a briefing on a memo or something but didn’t read it. I have no inside information. It just feels like this is too big not to have been passed on. And, like I said above, he always talks about how he doesn’t read and his staff has mentioned how disinclined he is to read what they put in front of him unless it is very short and/or complimentary.

edit: well I am now seeing reporting on my twitter feed where people are claiming he was given the info months ago

Click to expand...

New York Times is reporting that a written report was given to trump. He knew about it and he refused to do anything about it and American troops were killed. In turn, trump has lobbied for Putin. Trump is a traitor and should suffer a traitor's fate.