[jimjam]

If Mr. Trump was told about Russian actions, why did he not respond? If he was not told, why not? Are his top advisers utterly incompetent? Are they too scared to deliver bad news to Mr. Trump, particularly about Russia? Is Mr. Trump running a rogue foreign policy utterly divorced from U.S. national interests? If so, why?

A perilous pattern persists that underscores Mr. Trump’s strange propensity to serve Russian interests above America’s. Recall that, during his 2016 campaign, Mr. Trump publicly urged Russia to hack Hillary Clinton’s emails and praised WikiLeaks for publishing stolen documents.

He denied and dismissed Russian interference in the 2016 election, then took Mr. Putin at his word at a Helsinki meeting while undercutting the U.S. intelligence community, and obstructed the Mueller investigation and distorted its findings. Mr. Trump recklessly removed U.S. troops from northern Syria and allowed Russian forces to take over American bases.

Next, Mr. Trump unilaterally invited Mr. Putin to attend the Group of 7 meeting, a move that apparently upended the organization’s annual summit. Subsequently, without any consultation, Mr. Trump announced his decision to remove nearly a third of U.S. troops from Germany — a sudden and inexplicable withdrawal that weakens the U.S.-German relationship and harms NATO, while benefiting Russia.

Most recently, we have learned that even Russian efforts to slaughter American troops in cold blood do not faze this president. Mr. Trump brushes off the information, evades responsibility and fails to take action — not even lodging a diplomatic protest. Now Mr. Putin knows he can kill Americans with impunity.

What must we conclude from all this? At best, our commander in chief is utterly derelict in his duties, presiding over a dangerously dysfunctional national security process that is putting our country and those who wear its uniform at great risk. At worst, the White House is being run by liars and wimps catering to a tyrannical president who is actively advancing our arch adversary’s nefarious interests.

Susan E. Rice

[Politics_Observer]

@Doug64

Which makes as much as half or more of the members of our intelligence community involved with vetting this “pretty dumb, naive and stupid,” seeing how their inability to come to a consensus on its validity is the reason why the White House was never briefed on it. Which makes the leak to the press just one more political hit job by people in our intelligence community trying to overturn the 2016 election, like the Democrats’ Russian dossier.

I am sure Trump was briefed on this intelligence and is just lying when he says he wasn't briefed. Trump lies like we breath oxygen. Basically with your statement above, you are saying we don't need intelligence at all on anything because everything is political to you when it comes to intelligence. Based on your logic, the U.S. might as well not bother with having any intelligence agency or intelligence gathering capabilities at all because everything is just a political hit job.

The only person that is politicizing anything is Trump and a few of his supporters all at the cost of the lives of U.S. troops and American citizens. But hey, the lives of U.S. troops and American citizens are expendable to you, right Doug? Their lives mean nothing to you. It's all about what you want and fuck everybody else, right Doug? I mean, you know who cares if Russian bounties ended up killing a few U.S. soldiers if it ends up giving you what you want, right Doug? It's all about Doug and to hell with the lives of American citizens and the lives of U.S. troops.

And as far as "consensus" is concerned there is this where I put the important point in bold italics in a quote below from a recent news article:

In response to reports that Russia offered bounties to Taliban fighters to kill US troops in Afghanistan, the White House has denied that President Donald Trump was "personally briefed" on the matter, claiming that the intelligence "wasn't verified."

But a US official familiar with the latest information told CNN on Monday that intelligence about the Russian bounty was included in the President's Daily Briefing (PDB) sometime in the spring. The written document includes the intelligence communities' most important and urgent information. On Monday night, the New York Times reported that the information was included in a written briefing to the President in late February.

Trump is not known to read his daily briefing, and instead prefers an oral briefing a few times a week.

These latest revelations come as numerous former senior intelligence officials are pushing back on the White House denials, saying it was "absurd," "ridiculous," and "inconceivable" that the President would not have been briefed on such critical intelligence that potentially put US soldiers in harm's way.

On Monday, White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany repeatedly told reporters that the assessment on Russia did not reach Trump's desk because there is "no consensus" among US spy agencies and that intelligence must be verified before it is presented to the President. On Saturday, Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe put out a statement confirming that "neither the President nor the Vice President were ever briefed" on the intelligence, which was first reported by the New York Times Friday evening.

That response has incensed former members of the intelligence community. Not only should the President have been made aware of such intelligence, they say, but the notion that the President wasn't briefed because there was a difference of opinion among intelligence agencies is "inconceivable," said one former senior intelligence official, especially since it involved Russia.

"That's ridiculous," the former official said about the White House's claim, adding that it is "hard to believe" the intelligence community shared what it was hearing about Russia with allies like the British and not at least inform the President that it was a thread they were following.

A second former intelligence official called the notion that the President is not informed unless there is unanimity and 100% certainty "absurd."
"You would have trouble getting unanimity on tomorrow being Tuesday," the source told CNN on Monday.

A current administration official also said that some members of the US intelligence community feel "abandoned" by the Trump administration, particularly when it comes to Afghanistan, where the administration continues to pursue a peace deal with the Taliban.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/30/politics ... index.html

[skinster]

[Drlee]

Well it appears that our intel officials are briefing congress and the senate today. And they are not briefing the congress that nothing happened. In fact they have testified, if what is leaking out is to be believed, that it was in a Trump briefing book. We all have known for some time now that he does not pay attention to or read intelligence information.

Republicans have to own this. They sold out to a traitor. And boy are they going to pay in November. The people who remain alive are going to the polls.

100,000 new cases a day, hospitals overwhelmed, people dying like crazy and Trump is up in arms today about...wait for it....renaming our military bases so they are no longer named after traitors who took up arms against their own country. You know. Like Robert E. Lee who was a serving US Army officer who went over to the enemy. Yea Trump followers. This is the hill you want to die on.

Spectacular stupidity exhibited by people who are simply to unintelligent to know what they are doing.

[Politics_Observer]

@Drlee

That's exactly what Trump is, is a traitor. You hit the nail on the head. Trump is a sorry sack of shit in every sense of the word. He's the lowest of the low.

[Stormsmith]

Damned shame Moscow Mitch and company didn't see fit to advance the case against Impeached President Trump. Those dead American soldiers may be alive.

[Hindsite]

Well it appears that our intel officials are briefing congress and the senate today. And they are not briefing the congress that nothing happened. In fact they have testified, if what is leaking out is to be believed, that it was in a Trump briefing book. We all have known for some time now that he does not pay attention to or read intelligence information.

Republicans have to own this. They sold out to a traitor. And boy are they going to pay in November. The people who remain alive are going to the polls.

100,000 new cases a day, hospitals overwhelmed, people dying like crazy and Trump is up in arms today about...wait for it....renaming our military bases so they are no longer named after traitors who took up arms against their own country. You know. Like Robert E. Lee who was a serving US Army officer who went over to the enemy. Yea Trump followers. This is the hill you want to die on.

Spectacular stupidity exhibited by people who are simply to unintelligent to know what they are doing.

You should know better than believe that lying shifty Adam Schiff.

[blackjack21]

No, this did not happen, it's only American election year madness, because there's no reason for either the Russians nor the Taliban to do this, and Americans in regards to foreign policy are more than capable of screwing ourselves up without any help from others.

It seems like another British hit like the phony Russiagate narrative. The story uses terms like "spies" and "commandos". That isn't US parlance. It's British.

It could be the War Party trying to keep a 20-year old conflict going. Who knows.

Could be, but like I said, the story uses British terms of art.

Apparently, the information briefed to the British (MI6, I assume), identified the Russian program as being run by the GRU, Russia's military intel organization.

Obviously, this has MI6 fingerprints.

Those are my brothers and sisters in Afghanistan who probably were killed because Putin offered bribes to kill our troops.

Do you really think the Taliban just sits around stroking their dicks, but only get aggressive with Americans if the Russian government offers them money? You've been there. There's nothing to buy in Afghanistan. It's a failed state.

Those are my brothers and sisters in Afghanistan who probably were killed because Putin offered bribes to kill our troops.

GRU/FSB are civilians, just like our CIA.

Ohh I trust our intelligence professionals. I don't trust Trump but I do trust our intelligence professionals.

You trust spies?

The Intelligence Community can be trusted?

Bay of Pigs.... Gulf of Tonkin.... WMD'S in Iraq.... JFK....

Russiagate...

Could it be that Russia had lured Trump with the promise of lucrative developments in Moscow, and then caught Trump with his pants down (As much as the Steele dossier has been played down from the far right, has it really ever been discredited?).

Getting some prostitutes to pee on a bed that the Obamas slept in isn't a crime. It's just some lurid fantasy of whacked out leftists.

You would have to be pretty dumb, naive and stupid to believe it didn't happen. Putin is an evil man who hates America. No doubt.

So what do you think we should do? Invade Russia?

[Hindsite]

So what do you think we should do? Invade Russia?

I think it makes sense to make friends with Russia. That was Trump's plan before the Russiagate hoax.

[Politics_Observer]

@blackjack21

So what do you think we should do? Invade Russia?

Admin Edit: Rule 2 Violation Obviously our response should be covert. Order the CIA to assassinate members of the GRU unit involved in putting bounties on the heads of our troops and make sure our operation has plausible deniability. Take Russia's game and shove it back in their face.

Such retailiation is fair, targeted at the unit committing the offense and in proportion to the offense. The Russians would know it was us despite any plausible deniability and any actual denials we make. They will get the message that they will pay a price for putting bounties on the heads of our troops.

[Hindsite]

@blackjack21



You're an idiot. Obviously our response should be covert. Order the CIA to assassinate members of the GRU unit involved in putting bounties on the heads of our troops and make sure our operation has plausible deniability. Take Russia's game and shove it back in their face.

Such retailiation is fair, targeted at the unit committing the offense and in proportion to the offense. The Russians would know it was us despite any plausible deniability and any actual denials we make. They will get the message that they will pay a price for putting bounties on the heads of our troops.

How is that fair, when we don't even know for sure if this rumor is true?

[Politics_Observer]

@Hindsite

That's fair and square. Our intelligence has already told Trump that this was their conclusion. You either believe in protectinh our troops or you don't. Don't try to say that our intelligence didnt conclude that because that's not simply the case.

If you continue with your denials of what our intelligence concluded then I will conclude you simply dont care about the lives of our troops or the security of our country. That GRU unit putting bounties on the lives of our troops is fair game and requires a covert response. We are going to need to get our hands dirty in the spy world to protect our country and our troops.

[blackjack21]

You're an idiot.

You are assuming media stories are true and correct even with anonymous sources and vernacular that does not fit US intelligence.

Order the CIA to assassinate members of the GRU unit involved in putting bounties on the heads of our troops and make sure our operation has plausible deniability.

Why deny it if you are so certain Russia is involved?

Our intelligence has already told Trump that this was their conclusion.

According to an anonymous source from a New York Times story. That lacks depth. Additionally, the story uses terms like "spies" and "commandos". US intelligence uses terms like "assets", "informants", "special operators", etc.

Don't try to say that our intelligence didnt conclude that because that's not simply the case.

We have to believe an anonymous source according to the New York Times. Not everyone considers them politically disinterested or credible.

[jimjam]

You are assuming media stories are true and correct

is this the same guy who told us that there were 1,000,000 on the waiting list to get into The Trumpfest In Tulsa

[Finfinder]

You are assuming media stories are true and correct even with anonymous sources and vernacular that does not fit US intelligence.


Why deny it if you are so certain Russia is involved?


According to an anonymous source from a New York Times story. That lacks depth. Additionally, the story uses terms like "spies" and "commandos". US intelligence uses terms like "assets", "informants", "special operators", etc.


We have to believe an anonymous source according to the New York Times. Not everyone considers them politically disinterested or credible.

It's remarkable people have been duped for 4 years on this type of story yet they gulp the Kool Aid like it's their last drink. It's taking the term useful idiots to a brand new level.

[annatar1914]

It seems like another British hit like the phony Russiagate narrative. The story uses terms like "spies" and "commandos". That isn't US parlance. It's British.

@blackjack21 , ah yes, the British Elite Establishment who are a gift that just keep on giving. It's an old geopolitical game they've been playing since the days of Queen Elizabeth and Tsar Ivan, so it's not likely to be resolved anytime soon either. America is actually the indirect target of these insane hit pieces, and the goal is a balance of control obtained by a revival of the Cold War between the Superpowers.

[skinster]

This Russia-Afghanistan Story Is Western Propaganda At Its Most Vile
All western mass media outlets are now shrieking about the story The New York Times first reported, citing zero evidence and naming zero sources, claiming intelligence says Russia paid out bounties to Taliban-linked fighters in Afghanistan for attacking the occupying forces of the US and its allies in Afghanistan. As of this writing, and probably forevermore, there have still been zero intelligence sources named and zero evidence provided for this claim.

As we discussed yesterday, the only correct response to unsubstantiated claims by anonymous spooks in a post-Iraq invasion world is to assume that they are lying until you’ve been provided with a mountain of hard, independently verifiable evidence to the contrary. The fact that The New York Times instead chose to uncritically parrot these evidence-free claims made by operatives within intelligence agencies with a known track record of lying about exactly these things is nothing short of journalistic malpractice. The fact that western media outlets are now unanimously regurgitating these still 100 percent baseless assertions is nothing short of state propaganda.

The consensus-manufacturing, Overton window-shrinking western propaganda apparatus has been in full swing with mass media outlets claiming on literally no basis whatsoever that they have confirmed one another’s “great reporting” on this completely unsubstantiated story.



“The Wall Street Journal and The Washington Post have confirmed our reporting,” the NYT story’s co-author Charlie Savage tweeted hours ago.

“We have confirmed the New York Times’ scoop: A Russian military spy unit offered bounties to Taliban-linked militants to attack coalition forces in Afghanistan,” tweeted The Washington Post‘s John Hudson.

“We matched The New York Times’ great reporting on how US intel has assessed that Russians paid Taliban to target US, coalition forces in Afg which is a pretty stunning development,” tweeted Wall Street Journal’s Gordon Lubold.

All three of these men are lying.

John Hudson’s claim that the Washington Post article he co-authored “confirmed the New York Times’ scoop” twice uses the words “if confirmed” with regard to his central claim, saying “Russian involvement in operations targeting Americans, if confirmed,” and “The attempt to stoke violence against Americans, if confirmed“. This is of course an acknowledgement that these things have not, in fact, been confirmed.

The Wall Street Journal article co-authored by Gordon Lubold cites only anonymous “people”, who we have no reason to believe are different people than NYT’s sources, repeating the same unsubstantiated assertions about an intelligence report. The article cites no evidence that Lubold’s “stunning development” actually occurred beyond “people familiar with the report said” and “a person familiar with it said“.

The fact that both Hudson and Lubold were lying about having confirmed the New York Times‘ reporting means that Savage was also lying when he said they did. When they say the report has been “confirmed”, what they really mean is that it has been agreed upon. All the three of them actually did was use their profoundly influential outlets to uncritically parrot something nameless spooks want the public to believe, which is the same as just publishing a CIA press release free of charge. It is unprincipled stenography for opaque and unaccountable intelligence agencies, and it is disgusting.



None of this should be happening. The New York Times has admitted itself that it was wrong for uncritically parroting the unsubstantiated spook claims which led to the Iraq invasion, as has The Washington Post. There is no reason to believe Taliban fighters would require any bounty to attack an illegitimate occupying force. The Russian government has denied these allegations. The Taliban has denied these allegations. The Trump administration has denied that the president or the vice president had any knowledge of the spook report in question, denouncing the central allegation that liberals who are promoting this story have been fixated on.

Yet this story is being magically transmuted into an established fact, despite its being based on literally zero factual evidence.

Outlets like CNN are running the story with the headline “Russia offered bounties to Afghan militants to kill US troops“, deceitfully presenting this as a verified fact. Such dishonest headlines are joined by UK outlets like The Guardian who informs headline-skimmers that “Russia offered bounty to kill UK soldiers“, and the Murdoch-owned Sky News which went with “Russia paid Taliban fighters to attack British troops in Afghanistan” after “confirming” the story with anonymous British spooks.

Western propagandists are turning this completely empty story into the mainstream consensus, not with facts, not with evidence, and certainly not with journalism, but with sheer brute force of narrative control. And now you’ve got Joe Biden once again attacking Trump for being insufficiently warlike, this time because “he failed to sanction or impose any kind of consequences on Russia for this egregious violation of international law”.

You’ve also got former George W Bush lackey Richard Haas promoting “a proportionate response” to these baseless allegations.



“Russia is carrying out covert wars vs US troops in Afghanistan and our democracy here at home,” Haas tweeted with a link to the New York Times story. “A proportionate response would increase the costs to Russia of its military presence in Ukraine and Syria and, using sanctions and cyber, to challenge Putin at home.”

Haas is the president of the Council on Foreign Relations, a wildly influential think tank with its fingers in most major US news outlets.

And indeed, the unified campaign to shove this story down people’s throats in stark defiance of everything one learns in journalism school does appear to be geared toward advancing pre-existing foreign policy agendas which have nothing to do with any concern for the safety of US troops. Analysts have pointed out that this new development arises just in time to sabotage the last of the nuclear treaties between the US and Russia, the scaling down of US military presence in Afghanistan, and, as Haas already openly admitted, any possibility of peace in Syria.

“This story is published just in time to sabotage US-Russia arms control talks,” Antiwar‘s Dave DeCamp noted on Twitter. “As the US is preparing for a new arms race — and possibly even live nuclear tests — the New York Times provides a great excuse to let the New START lapse, making the world a much more dangerous place. Russiagate has provided the cover for Trump to pull out of arms control agreements. First the INF, then the Open Skies, and now possibly the New START. Any talks or negotiations with Russia are discouraged in this atmosphere, and this Times story will make things even worse.”

“US ‘intelligence’ agencies (ie, organized crime networks run by the state) want to sabotage the (admittedly very inadequate) peace talks in Afghanistan,” tweeted journalist Ben Norton. “So they get best of both worlds: blame the Russian bogeyman, fueling the new cold war, while prolonging the military occupation. It’s not a coincidence these dubious Western intelligence agency claims about Russia came just days after a breakthrough in peace talks. Afghanistan’s geostrategic location (and trillions worth of minerals) is too important to them.”



All parties involved in spreading this malignant psyop are absolutely vile, but a special disdain should be reserved for the media class who have been entrusted by the public with the essential task of creating an informed populace and holding power to account. How much of an unprincipled whore do you have to be to call yourself a journalist and uncritically parrot the completely unsubstantiated assertions of spooks while protecting their anonymity? How much work did these empire fluffers put into killing off every last shred of their dignity? It boggles the mind.

It really is funny how the most influential news outlets in the western world will uncritically parrot whatever they’re told to say by the most powerful and depraved intelligence agencies on the planet, and then turn around and tell you without a hint of self-awareness that Russia and China are bad because they have state media.

Sometimes all you can do is laugh.
https://caitlinjohnstone.com/2020/06/28 ... most-vile/

[Hellas me ponas]

@blackjack21 , ah yes, the British Elite Establishment who are a gift that just keep on giving. It's an old geopolitical game they've been playing since the days of Queen Elizabeth and Tsar Ivan, so it's not likely to be resolved anytime soon either. America is actually the indirect target of these insane hit pieces, and the goal is a balance of control obtained by a revival of the Cold War between the Superpowers.

There are no *superpowers * currently, there is only A superpower and that's America.
All the rest are just great powers. China is trying to become a super power, but Americans arent dumb to allow for this to happen.
The only cold war curre tly is the one between America v China and
Franco -Germans (and their puppets) v America.
The second one is the most quiet and calm one because Europeans are waiting patiently and move slowly and little each time. They don't face Americans directly head on yet, but instead they wisely are passively letting China win.

[Hellas me ponas]

This isn't 1970s.
It's been 30 years since the Soviet collapse

[Hindsite]

@Hindsite

That's fair and square. Our intelligence has already told Trump that this was their conclusion. You either believe in protectinh our troops or you don't. Don't try to say that our intelligence didnt conclude that because that's not simply the case.

If you continue with your denials of what our intelligence concluded then I will conclude you simply dont care about the lives of our troops or the security of our country. That GRU unit putting bounties on the lives of our troops is fair game and requires a covert response. We are going to need to get our hands dirty in the spy world to protect our country and our troops.

I am pretty sure that you have not received the intelligence briefing on this so-called bounty on American troops. The New York Times as well as the Washington Post have been known for their fake news stories from an unnamed anonymous source. This appears to be another one to me. I am willing to wait for the truth.