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

[The moose]

Russia Secretly Offered Afghan Militants Bounties to Kill U.S. Troops, Intelligence Says (Published 2020)

The Trump administration has been deliberating for months about what to do about a stunning intelligence assessment.

www.nytimes.com

An amazing read.

Trump was told about this in March. Then tries to get Russia back into the g8.

The timing is just plain horrible.

 

[FullMonte]

Numbers 3, 4 and 5 could ensure an endless presence in Afghanistan. Let someone else worry about those 3 things. We've been there for almost 20 years. It's time to leave.

Isn't "letting someone else worry about 4 and 5 what we did in Iraq?" That sure turned out ok.

 

[SaintForLife]

The legislation is from Rep. Jason Crow, a former Army Ranger who served 3 tours in Iraq and Afghanistan and was awarded a bronze star. Putting some metrics and goals for troop drawdowns instead of leaving it up to Trump’s whims is exactly what I hoped this Rep would do.

You are mischaracterizing the goal of this legislation and the integrity/intent of it’s author in order to justify Trump’s supposed inaction on Russia offering bounties on US troops.

Crow was an impeachment manager. I'm not sure if he's someone to look at for unbiased critiques.

 

[SaintForLife]

You've said this a few times, but the intelligence on Russia has mostly been accurate.

Seriously? Lol. You must be ignoring all of the information that's come out in the last month or two that has completely discredited the Russia collusion investigations, the Steele dossier, the FISA warrants, the evidence that the Muller prosecutor withheld in regards to Flynn, etc.

 

[SaintForLife]

Isn't "letting someone else worry about 4 and 5 what we did in Iraq?" That sure turned out ok.

I was wrongly for the Iraq war back then, but does anyone currently think we should have ever been in Iraq? Do you think we should continue interfering in other countries affairs militarily and being the world's policeman?

 

[cuddlemonkey]

Crow was an impeachment manager. I'm not sure if he's someone to look at for unbiased critiques.

That's another logical fallacy. By this rationale, you are incapable of delivering unbiased critiques and opinions as well. Everyone who has ever done something we disagree with could also be deemed incapable of the same. This is why we attack the argument and not the person.

 

[efil4]

Crow was an impeachment manager. I'm not sure if he's someone to look at for unbiased critiques.

Lol dude just read that Crow served 3 tours, received Bronze Star and response is "but but... He was impeachment manager... So can't be trusted really".

You now go on ignore. I'll let the others here entertain you.

 

[TaylorB]

The reason our national security apparatus assigns confidence levels to intelligence is because the people using the intelligence understand, and implicitly acknowledge, that covert information-gathering is an inexact science. We expect our leaders to make the best decisions they can with the information available to them.

Generally speaking, we also expect there to be some correlation between the potential impact of those decisions with the level of confidence in the intelligence. We learned in the wake of 9/11 what happens if we make decisions with the potential to cause loss of life, have geopolitical consequences, and cause tremendous financial costs, without properly assessing the intelligence. Our level of response to Russia, if any, should very much take into consideration the confidence we have about the intelligence, and should very much consider the likelihood and impact of how such a response might prolong the conflict in Afghanistan.

Using the Iraq war, or the Trump-Russia 2016 story, to completely disregard intelligence without any consideration for the pieces of information we do have, manipulates the narrative to one that is more politically convenient for Trump supporters, most of whom I assume understand intelligence remains a valuable tool in protecting the security of our country. After all, the Trump administration supported its own decision to assassinate Qasem Soleimani based on intelligence from the same IC -- which stated that Iran was behind the attacks on our air bases and embassy -- that it is now accusing of perpetuating a "hoax" with respect to Afghanistan.

I'm a fan of the principle of Occam's razor -- the simplest explanation for a complex issue is often the right one. The explanation for the disconnect here seems simple to me -- we know Trump is a serial liar who, for whatever reasons, is highly averse to displeasing Putin, and is inclined to disregard, disbelieve, and/or discredit intelligence assessments relating to Putin. We saw it on full display in Helsinki after he publicly rejected our intelligence assessment that Russia interfered in 2016, and instead accepted Putin's claim that Russia "didn't do it" after literally asking them, in public, to interfere. We've seen it plenty of other times with denials about Russia that were proven untrue.

Here, the odds are pretty high that he's done all three -- he disregarded it when it was reported to him, he disbelieved it then and now, and he's now hell bent on discrediting it. This has led his supporters to do the same thing, regardless of the facts being reported on. Trump does not seem to be interested in any way, shape, or form whether the underlying intelligence can be confirmed, and therefore, neither do his supporters. We can debate all day whether the underlying intelligence is correct, but the truth is that nobody in this thread knows 100% one way or another whether it's true. So the fight we're having about the truth of the underlying intelligence comes from Trump wanting us to have that fight, so he doesn't have to respond to Putin, even if it's true.

The explanation advanced by Trump supporters (still in the Occam's razor framework) is that Trump -- although a known liar, philanderer, and leader with a widely known proclivity for shunning allied leaders of democracies in favor of autocrats -- is the victim of a widespread conspiracy by Democrats, former Obama officials, former Trump officials, neocons, the media, the military industrial complex, and the entire intelligence community, to ensure Trump's downfall and our continued military presence overseas by perpetuating false narratives about his relationship with Putin. That all of these people care more about Trump going down and filling their campaign coffers than they do about legitimate national security interests of this country, and that Trump and a dwindling number of faithful supporters are doing everything in their power to fight the establishment and bolster our national security interests, regardless of the bad optics of those national security interests just-so-happening to align, in every contour, with the interests of autocrats he publicly praises and admires like Putin, Erdogan, MBS, MBZ, and Netanyahu. That career intelligence officials fabricated or exaggerated a story about Putin paying off the Taliban to advance this secret agenda, and that the 45-11 vote on the House Armed Services Committee to restrict Trump's power in Afghanistan (and measures taken elsewhere which have the effect of ensuring Trump can't unilaterally cede power to Putin) was not the result of people concerned that Trump's decisions are a legitimate threat to national security, but rather the result of greedy, bad faith neocons who are in bed with the military industrial complex and risk American lives and national security so that they all can become wealthy and/or get re-elected.

My proposed "explanation" does not depend on the correctness of the underlying intelligence, but rather simply points out that the proposition most of us are asserting -- hey, this might be true, bears looking into, and requires a meaningful response from the president -- is rather straightforward, and does not require us to regard every piece of information that comes from the intelligence community as gospel. It requires a simple acknowledgement that we ought to not take as gospel Trump's narrative about the strength of the intelligence -- which he alone calls a "hoax" -- but rather ought to consider the possibility that the intelligence is correct and decide what, if anything, we ought to do about it to protect our troops overseas. The explanation advanced by Trump supporters, on the other hand, requires us to accept Trump's denials and attempts to discredit the story at face value, rejecting or undermining the credibility of everyone outside Trump's dwindling circle.

Trump defenders: how does Trump's credibility so significantly outweigh everyone else's credibility that we're being naive for entertaining the idea that the intel could be legitimate, and that the quest to find more answers is a sincere effort to protect American lives, as opposed to part of a pro-military anti-Trump conspiracy? Does any of you think Trump would actually push back against Putin if the intelligence was demonstrated to be highly accurate? Isn't it likely that Trump's non-belief in the intelligence stems more from him not wanting it to be true than from Trump legitimately trying to decide if it actually is true? Shouldn't he make an effort to show the country he's done everything in his power to make an honest assessment about whether or not it's true?

 

[FullMonte]

I was wrongly for the Iraq war back then, but does anyone currently think we should have ever been in Iraq? Do you think we should continue interfering in other countries affairs militarily and being the world's policeman?

I didn't say anything about whether or not we should have been in Iraq, or whether or not we should be the world's police.

You said that we shouldn't bother with "working towards a sustained peace," or "ensuring that bad actors are kept in check." I stated that after the overthrow of Suddam Hussein, we left and allowed bad actors to take over that country.

 

[Saintamaniac]

The reason our national security apparatus assigns confidence levels to intelligence is because the people using the intelligence understand, and implicitly acknowledge, that covert information-gathering is an inexact science. We expect our leaders to make the best decisions they can with the information available to them.

If the goal is to have at least some excuse that doesn't look like it makes completely no sense then arguing the lack of 100% proof as justification for not doing anything when first told represents the last bastion of hope for the trump camp. Otherwise, this smacks trump supporters right there in the face....the fact that trump knew about Russia putting bounties on US soldiers and refused to do anything about it. Not only that, he had several calls with Putin over a few days with Putin with no readouts and continued to lobby for Russia. There's no other way to look at it and they no that is a hypocrisy that they themselves could not bare.

 

[SaintForLife]

Lol dude just read that Crow served 3 tours, received Bronze Star and response is "but but... He was impeachment manager... So can't be trusted really".

You now go on ignore. I'll let the others here entertain you.

So if someone serves in the miltary they are automatically immune from any criticism and their opinions are deemed correct?

Crow said during the impeachment that Trump endangered US national security by delaying weapons sales to Ukraine - sales that Obama totally rejected.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

So if someone serves in the miltary they are automatically immune from any criticism and their opinions are deemed correct?

Crow said during the impeachment that Trump endangered US national security by delaying weapons sales to Ukraine - sales that Obama totally rejected.

I fail to see what Obama has to do with any of this. Please stop distracting from the topic at hand with pointless comments about the impeachment and Obama.

As I said earlier, it doesn't matter if Crow is immune from or deserving of criticism. It's a fallacy. Discrediting the person does not discredit the argument.

 

[SaintForLife]

I fail to see what Obama has to do with any of this. Please stop distracting from the topic at hand with pointless comments about the impeachment and Obama.

As I said earlier, it doesn't matter if Crow is immune from or deserving of criticism. It's a fallacy. Discrediting the person does not discredit the argument.

Stop telling me what to post. My reference to Obama is totally relevant because it included the same arm sales that he rejected that all of sudden was important when Trump was president.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

Stop telling me what to post. My reference to Obama is totally relevant because it included the same arm sales that he rejected that all of sudden was important when Trump was president.

It has nothing to do with Russia paying bounties for killing US and allied troops. You're deflecting from the story at hand by misrepresenting a different story.

Do you have anything that illustrates why Crow (since this is who you are singling out for attack) does not want the US to leave Afghanistan? You've implied a lot, but you aren't really saying much. Will you clarify this point in order to further the discussion?

 

[SaintForLife]

It has nothing to do with Russia paying bounties for killing US and allied troops. You're deflecting from the story at hand by misrepresenting a different story.

Do you have anything that illustrates why Crow (since this is who you are singling out for attack) does not want the US to leave Afghanistan? You've implied a lot, but you aren't really saying much. Will you clarify this point in order to further the discussion?

I wasn't the person who first brought up Crow in this thread. Why don't you stop trying to act like a moderator?

 

[B4YOU]

From article:

McConnell said he couldn't verify whether Russia offered bounties on U.S. troops but wouldn't be surprised if they did.

"Would I be surprised if the Russians were doing something like this? Absolutely not. They're trying to create a problem for us everywhere," he said.

Redirect Notice

Right now Rs are saying it was not part of the oral briefing. Reports are Trump would fly off the handle anytime the Briefer said anything negative about Russia. Dems are saying the President should read his briefings. There are reports of Russian financial transfers to the Taliban and Taliban members claiming the bounties are real.

@SaintForLife Would you support a Benghazi level investigation into the PDB process by interviewing the Briefer and into Russian financial transfers to the Taliban? Shouldn’t Rs support this same level of investigation?

 

[SaintForLife]

From article:

Redirect Notice

Right now Rs are saying it was not part of the oral briefing. Reports are Trump would fly off the handle anytime the Briefer said anything negative about Russia. Dems are saying the President should read his briefings. There are reports of Russian financial transfers to the Taliban and Taliban members claiming the bounties are real.

@SaintForLife Would you support a Benghazi level investigation into the PDB process by interviewing the Briefer and into Russian financial transfers to the Taliban? Shouldn’t Rs support this same level of investigation?

If any actual evidence is produced then I would have no problem with an investigation. Unnamed intelligence sources in articles don't count as proof.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

I wasn't the person who first brought up Crow in this thread. Why don't you stop trying to act like a moderator?

No, you were just the one to attack him and make excuses. I don't see why you are spending so much time avoiding the actual discussion.

This is the post where you linked to the story that discusses Crow's amendment:

Russia offered bounties to kill american troops.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/26/us/politics/russia-afghanistan-bounties.htmlAn amazing read.Trump was told about this in March. Then tries to get Russia back into the g8.The timing is just plain horrible.

madaboutpolitics.com

SFL, do you have any specific reasons why you feel Crow, as the author of the amendment you first linked, should be outright dismissed without giving any thought to the substance of his amendment?

 

[MT15]

Stop telling me what to post. My reference to Obama is totally relevant because it included the same arm sales that he rejected that all of sudden was important when Trump was president.

no, it really is only a distraction from the topic of this thread. Which isn’t Ukraine weapon sales or Obama or the impeachment of Trump.