Russia offered bounties to kill american troops. (1 Viewer)

[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.

 

[GMRfellowtraveller]

Is there a difference between skepticism and intransigence?

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

This is the type of story I hate. Unnamed sources, leaked intelligence reports with little context, and so on.

I think this is an important story, but I don't think it's ready for public consumption. I think this was the sort of thing that used to be the start of a major story - ie, use the anonymous sources to get information on the record. Now we just get a leak and it immediately goes to press.

Second, there's not a lot of context to this story -- level of confidence in the reporting, etc. And even if it is exactly what was reported - we don't know if there are policy reasons for not doing anything to Russia in retaliation (ie, maybe we squeezed them somewhere else, and it makes sense to keep that silent).

Now the Trump administration response to this makes me think that there was not a nuanced policy response or some other game plan. However, I really hate leaked intelligence reporting, particularly done in this way.

 

[MT15]

At this point I don't know what the truth is and what isn't.. is there evidence indicating what's in your post here is the actual truth?

The source is highly suspect, imo. She’s a refugee from Fox who embarrassed herself with a fawning interview of Bill Barr. It was unprofessional. She was almost coquettish.

She is entirely biased and one sided. CBS should get rid of her, she is a cheerleader for this administration. She doesn’t belong in a serious news setting.

 

[MT15]

This is the type of story I hate. Unnamed sources, leaked intelligence reports with little context, and so on.

I think this is an important story, but I don't think it's ready for public consumption. I think this was the sort of thing that used to be the start of a major story - ie, use the anonymous sources to get information on the record. Now we just get a leak and it immediately goes to press.

Second, there's not a lot of context to this story -- level of confidence in the reporting, etc. And even if it is exactly what was reported - we don't know if there are policy reasons for not doing anything to Russia in retaliation (ie, maybe we squeezed them somewhere else, and it makes sense to keep that silent).

Now the Trump administration response to this makes me think that there was not a nuanced policy response or some other game plan. However, I really hate leaked intelligence reporting, particularly done in this way.

I think the professionals are getting fed up with the way Trump doesn’t do his job. These leaks are a sign of that frustration. In any normal administration, this would have been dealt with behind the scenes and it would have been debated with various agencies making the case for their interpretation. A decision would have been made and actions taken, whether diplomatic or whatever. The only thing you can’t do is “nothing” and it appears that is exactly what happened.

Can you imagine how weak we are perceived to be because of a total lack of response here?

I mean, he hasn’t even said he is going to get to the truth of what happened, has he? I mean, now he knows. All I’ve heard from everyone in the administration is condemnation for the leaks. That‘s not the important thing here. It shouldn’t be hard to figure that out.

 

[The moose]

I think the professionals are getting fed up with the way Trump doesn’t do his job. These leaks are a sign of that frustration. In any normal administration, this would have been dealt with behind the scenes and it would have been debated with various agencies making the case for their interpretation. A decision would have been made and actions taken, whether diplomatic or whatever. The only thing you can’t do is “nothing” and it appears that is exactly what happened.

Can you imagine how weak we are perceived to be because of a total lack of response here?

I mean, he hasn’t even said he is going to get to the truth of what happened, has he? I mean, now he knows. All I’ve heard from everyone in the administration is condemnation for the leaks. That‘s not the important thing here. It shouldn’t be hard to figure that out.

Well the Lincoln project kinda has something to say.

 

[SaintForLife]

The source is highly suspect, imo. She’s a refugee from Fox who embarrassed herself with a fawning interview of Bill Barr. It was unprofessional. She was almost coquettish.

She is entirely biased and one sided. CBS should get rid of her, she is a cheerleader for this administration. She doesn’t belong in a serious news setting.

Thats ridiculous and untrue. You think she's biased because she doesn't toe the normal media line of Russia, Russia, Russia! She's a very respected reporter despite your what you said about her.

It's pretty ironic that you complain about her interview of Barr while the arm of the Democratic party, I mean the media, gives nothing put softball interviews to Democrats.

 

[MT15]

Very good take from people who have been in these positions and know how things should go.

 

[MT15]

Thats ridiculous and untrue. You think she's biased because she doesn't toe the normal media line of Russia, Russia, Russia! She's a very respected reporter despite your what you said about her.

It's pretty ironic that you complain about her interview of Barr while the arm of the Democratic party, I mean the media, gives nothing put softball interviews to Democrats.

Dude, I watched the interview, it was embarrassing for her on a professional level. She may have once been a respected reporter, I don’t know, since I have only been aware of her since you started quoting her. But I know that right now she has no credibility because she is firmly on Team Trump. She will end up on OANN if I had to guess. JMO, but she wouldn’t be the first person to lose herself in service to Trump.

 

[Lapaz]

Thats ridiculous and untrue. You think she's biased because she doesn't toe the normal media line of Russia, Russia, Russia! She's a very respected reporter despite your what you said about her.

It's pretty ironic that you complain about her interview of Barr while the arm of the Democratic party, I mean the media, gives nothing put softball interviews to Democrats.

That was a powderpuff interview by Herridge, and that's putting it mildy.

She asked, "it seems you want to make sure that politics doesn't play a part". This just allows Barr to preach that he is a stand-up guy. Imagine if he had said something honestly like "I was appointed by Trump, so it is an inherently political position."

"What do you want people to learn from this". Again this allows him to preach. That's like asking someone to puff himself up.

"Are the actions bigger than the Flynn case. " Again, does she expect Barr to minimize how important his decisions are. This just allows him to say of course this is needed for justice.

"Is this one of the most consequential decisions you made?" Is Barr supposed to say this was no big deal. He could've minimized it, or said this was a huge deal, and neither leads to anything of value. Barr chose to appear modest by saying others can be the judge.

"Was this an easy decision?" Wow, what a tough question.

"Are you doing the president's bidding?" Of course Barr will say yes....not. Of course he said no, as she should anticipate, but then there should be a follow-up to challenge that, but nope.

"Were you influenced by Trumps Tweets?" Of course Barr will say yes....not.

"What was the evidence that helped you decide this issue?" Actually a decent question, but she didn't challenge when Barr said it was a perjury trap. Why not ask, if you don't lie, you won't perjure yourself? Why not ask about the implications of talking about the sanctions and how implying Trump would remove the sanctions would undermine the effectiveness of the sanctions? What about possible motivations related to self enrichment from the Saudi nuclear deal which would undermine American policy? Just any challenges to the narrative that the interview was not warranted would've made drastically improved the quality of the interview.

"Are you prepared for the incoming (criticisms)?" Of course he'll say that I'm not ready...not. Of course he said he was ready, but that he had to do for justice. What about challenging why he chose this case to get involved with, and not others?

"Based on the evidence, did senior FBI conspire to throwout the NSC?" She was leading Barr to say yes.

"What are the consequences for these officials?" Seems to be leading Barr again.

"Did you discuss this with Trump?" Actually a good question, because Barr said no. If we later find out that it was discussed, that question could be useful.

She asked about the notes "...what is our goal with this interview?" Not a bad question, since Barr said that suspects are often expected to lie, but then said that there was no bonafide reason to have the interview. No challenge about justice being served.

"Many of these records should've been provided to Flynn. Do you still have confidence in Wray?" Allows Barr to prop Wray up, and what records? The notes?

"Does Wray have his hands around the gravity of what happened in 2016 and 2017?" By that she seems to mean the travesty of justice against Flynn. Gag! We just allowed a traitor to walk.

"Recent evidence is that the Steele dosier was the product of Russian misinformation. What do you think about it continuing to be used?" Of course he'll say it is horrible, even though most of the dosier is true, and Barr knows no intelligence is 100% certain.

The interview was nearly worthless from a critical analysis point of view.

 

[V Chip]

We are seeing a politicization of intelligence unlike we have seen since

On this we wholeheartedly agree, but for probably differing reasons.

 

[The moose]

That was a powderpuff interview by Herridge, and that's putting it mildy.

She asked, "it seems you want to make sure that politics doesn't play a part". This just allows Barr to preach that he is a stand-up guy. Imagine if he had said something honestly like "I was appointed by Trump, so it is an inherently political position."

"What do you want people to learn from this". Again this allows him to preach. That's like asking someone to puff himself up.

"Are the actions bigger than the Flynn case. " Again, does she expect Barr to minimize how important his decisions are. This just allows him to say of course this is needed for justice.

"Is this one of the most consequential decisions you made?" Is Barr supposed to say this was no big deal. He could've minimized it, or said this was a huge deal, and neither leads to anything of value. Barr chose to appear modest by saying others can be the judge.

"Was this an easy decision?" Wow, what a tough question.

"Are you doing the president's bidding?" Of course Barr will say yes....not. Of course he said no, as she should anticipate, but then there should be a follow-up to challenge that, but nope.

"Were you influenced by Trumps Tweets?" Of course Barr will say yes....not.

"What was the evidence that helped you decide this issue?" Actually a decent question, but she didn't challenge when Barr said it was a perjury trap. Why not ask, if you don't lie, you won't perjure yourself? Why not ask about the implications of talking about the sanctions and how implying Trump would remove the sanctions would undermine the effectiveness of the sanctions? What about possible motivations related to self enrichment from the Saudi nuclear deal which would undermine American policy? Just any challenges to the narrative that the interview was not warranted would've made drastically improved the quality of the interview.

"Are you prepared for the incoming (criticisms)?" Of course he'll say that I'm not ready...not. Of course he said he was ready, but that he had to do for justice. What about challenging why he chose this case to get involved with, and not others?

"Based on the evidence, did senior FBI conspire to throwout the NSC?" She was leading Barr to say yes.

"What are the consequences for these officials?" Seems to be leading Barr again.

"Did you discuss this with Trump?" Actually a good question, because Barr said no. If we later find out that it was discussed, that question could be useful.

She asked about the notes "...what is our goal with this interview?" Not a bad question, since Barr said that suspects are often expected to lie, but then said that there was no bonafide reason to have the interview. No challenge about justice being served.

"Many of these records should've been provided to Flynn. Do you still have confidence in Wray?" Allows Barr to prop Wray up, and what records? The notes?

"Does Wray have his hands around the gravity of what happened in 2016 and 2017?" By that she seems to mean the travesty of justice against Flynn. Gag! We just allowed a traitor to walk.

"Recent evidence is that the Steele dosier was the product of Russian misinformation. What do you think about it continuing to be used?" Of course he'll say it is horrible, even though most of the dosier is true, and Barr knows no intelligence is 100% certain.

The interview was nearly worthless from a critical analysis point of view.

Well we do have to look at the reasons why she is at CBS.

She aged out at fox. Considering she was Hillary's shadow for fox she followed all her campaigns for fox and Hillary is irrelevant now.

Why would CBS give her a job? Um to get the interview for CBS from a guy like Barr. The only reason she or CBS got that interview was because Barr knew he was gonna get softballs gingerly thrown at him.

I never expected it to be anything but what it was.

 

[TaylorB]

I thought this was a good interview with Chris Cuomo and Abigail Spanberger (D-Va), who is a former CIA officer:



In response to the last question (beginning roughly at 6:15 mark) Spanberger explains why it’s important for Americans to want to get to the bottom of the intelligence first and foremost, as opposed to focusing on whether the administration dragged its feet, for the sake of armed service members and their families who might be in harm’s way.

I can get on board with that (and I own the fact that I’ve been guilty of politicizing it), and I agree with her that we also need the president to come out with a firm commitment that we are going to do everything we can to assess the situation and respond, if warranted. We will see if that’s what happens.

The rest of the interview is worth a watch, too.

 

[efil4]

I thought this was a good interview with Chris Cuomo and Abigail Spanberger (D-Va), who is a former CIA officer:



In response to the last question (beginning roughly at 6:15 mark) Spanberger explains why it’s important for Americans to want to get to the bottom of the intelligence first and foremost, as opposed to focusing on whether the administration dragged its feet, for the sake of armed service members and their families who might be in harm’s way.

I can get on board with that (and I own the fact that I’ve been guilty of politicizing it), and I agree with her that we also need the president to come out with a firm commitment that we are going to do everything we can to assess the situation and respond, if warranted. We will see if that’s what happens.

The rest of the interview is worth a watch, too.

And to piggyback off this....we are now 3-4 days into this story.

POTUS and his Administration have yet to tell the American public that they are going to move heaven and earth to determine the voracity of the claims.

Instead, we have POTUS tweeting that its a "hoax".

Why?

As a former service member, there was NEVER any doubt in my mind, and the minds of my US Army brothers ( and sisters now ) that had our Government received intel on plots against servicemembers abroad, that our Country would do EVERYTHING to protect us.

Now? Im not so sure our young men and women o the Armed Forces can be 100% certain. And that is a problem.

I dont know how you keep from politicizing it, because at its core, its political ( just as the mask vs non mask issue ). And made so by POTUS himself.

@SaintForLife ...simple question that i hope you will answer.

When it comes to Russia and US, do you consider Russia to be an ally?

 

[DaveXA]

This is the type of story I hate. Unnamed sources, leaked intelligence reports with little context, and so on.

I think this is an important story, but I don't think it's ready for public consumption. I think this was the sort of thing that used to be the start of a major story - ie, use the anonymous sources to get information on the record. Now we just get a leak and it immediately goes to press.

Second, there's not a lot of context to this story -- level of confidence in the reporting, etc. And even if it is exactly what was reported - we don't know if there are policy reasons for not doing anything to Russia in retaliation (ie, maybe we squeezed them somewhere else, and it makes sense to keep that silent).

Now the Trump administration response to this makes me think that there was not a nuanced policy response or some other game plan. However, I really hate leaked intelligence reporting, particularly done in this way.

This is pretty much my sentiments as well. Thanks for posting.

I think there's a lot going on behind the scenes that we aren't privy to and with the Intel community's penchant for smoke and mirrors, I'm in more of a wait and see mode.

 

[not2rich]

If these reports are true, it corroborates whatever human intelligence is behind the conclusion:

Suspicions of Russian Bounties Were Bolstered by Data on Financial Transfers (Published 2020)

Analysts have used other evidence to conclude that the transfers were most likely part of an effort to offer payments to Taliban-linked militants to kill American and coalition troops in Afghanistan.

www.nytimes.com

 

[superchuck500]

 

[zztop]

Trump said it was fake news. So nothing to too see here (insert gif from the movie airplane)

 

[Saintamaniac]

Trump said it was fake news. So nothing to too see here (insert gif from the movie airplane)

If he's claiming it's fake news, then we 100% know it's not. This is his go to move. Claim fake news and try to destroy evidence. Republicans are complicit in this. How long do they think that they can get away with this? If this isn't the moment for Republicans to choose country over trump, then they have ALL sold out.