• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Doubting the intelligence

iliveonramen

Pontificator
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 23, 2011
Messages
11,273
Reaction score
5,733
Location
On a Gravy Train with Biscuit Wheels
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
https://www.washingtonpost.com/grap...ion-hacking/?tid=a_inl&utm_term=.3f3b4baa18d6

Interesting read about the Trump administration and how they have been dealing with Russia in regards to foreign policy. Some interesting tidbits while reading:

U.S. officials declined to discuss whether the stream of recent intelligence on Russia has been shared with Trump. Current and former officials said that his daily intelligence update — known as the president’s daily brief, or PDB — is often structured to avoid upsetting him.
Apparently intelligence reports have to take the Presidents feeling into consideration....
The alliance, built around a pledge of mutual defense against Soviet or Russian aggression among the United States and its European allies, became a flash point in internal White House battles. McMaster, an ardent NATO supporter, struggled to fend off attacks on the alliance and its members by Trump’s political advisers.
McMaster and some others in the administration have a more traditional view of Russia and how to interact with them. Other members of Trumps team seem to what to take a completely opposite approach. The article includes a shouting match between McMaster and Bannon.


On sensitive matters related to Russia, senior advisers have at times adopted what one official described as a policy of “don’t walk that last 5½ feet” — meaning to avoid entering the Oval Office and giving Trump a chance to erupt or overrule on issues that can be resolved by subordinates

Another example of Russian policy being a touchy subject around the White House.

His demeanor with the German leader was in striking contrast with his encounters with Putin and other authoritarian figures. “Who are the three guys in the world he most admires? President Xi [Jinping] of China, [Turkish President Recep Tayyip] Erdogan and Putin,” one Trump adviser said. “They’re all the same guy.”
This is something we tend to see and it's pretty interesting. Trump gets along pretty well with dictators. He has strained relationships with the democracies of the world.


Overall...the story's main theme is that Trump has a weird relationship with Russia. Before people on this board strike out without reading the article....it doesn't say it's due to collusion. If anything, it says it has to do with Trump's ego and the idea that Russian interference takes away from Trump's election victory.
 
Nah, don't worry. The leader of the GOP holds dictators in high regard, that's perfectly normal and fine if you ask the Trump voting base. Nothing to be concerned about there.
 
https://www.washingtonpost.com/grap...ion-hacking/?tid=a_inl&utm_term=.3f3b4baa18d6

Interesting read about the Trump administration and how they have been dealing with Russia in regards to foreign policy. Some interesting tidbits while reading:


Apparently intelligence reports have to take the Presidents feeling into consideration....

McMaster and some others in the administration have a more traditional view of Russia and how to interact with them. Other members of Trumps team seem to what to take a completely opposite approach. The article includes a shouting match between McMaster and Bannon.




Another example of Russian policy being a touchy subject around the White House.


This is something we tend to see and it's pretty interesting. Trump gets along pretty well with dictators. He has strained relationships with the democracies of the world.


Overall...the story's main theme is that Trump has a weird relationship with Russia. Before people on this board strike out without reading the article....it doesn't say it's due to collusion. If anything, it says it has to do with Trump's ego and the idea that Russian interference takes away from Trump's election victory.

These are the same intelligence official who failed to discover a bunch of terrorists planning 9/11, swore up and down that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and may even have a nuclear bomb, thought destabalizing Libya was a fantastic idea, and then after seeing what happened in Iraq and Libya thought that they'd have another go at it in Syria.

Meanwhile, while our intelligence agencies were durdling in the Middle-east, our relationship with the Phillipines fell apart. Kim-jong un has been thumbing his nose out our intelligence agency's policy of supplication and acquiescence.

Oh and our efforts to stop Boko Haram, which has killed way more people than ISIS, is low key. Oh and who could forget the Janjaweed committing genocide in Sudan? Our "intelligence" can apparently.

I get tired of these people and their spectacular failures. Whenever they get called out on it they claim that they're such professionals who are risking their lives. Professionals are supposed to be good at their jobs, and our intelligence agencies have gone downhill since 9-11. The worst of them have always been the CIA but the NSA is doing it's damndest to take the mantle.

This whole "Russia" thing? If its true then it's yet another failure of the intelligence agencies...I have a feeling that the Russia investigation that will never end because it allows a bunch of bureaucrats to justify their jobs.
 
These are the same intelligence official who failed to discover a bunch of terrorists planning 9/11, swore up and down that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and may even have a nuclear bomb, thought destabalizing Libya was a fantastic idea, and then after seeing what happened in Iraq and Libya thought that they'd have another go at it in Syria.

Meanwhile, while our intelligence agencies were durdling in the Middle-east, our relationship with the Phillipines fell apart. Kim-jong un has been thumbing his nose out our intelligence agency's policy of supplication and acquiescence.

Oh and our efforts to stop Boko Haram, which has killed way more people than ISIS, is low key. Oh and who could forget the Janjaweed committing genocide in Sudan? Our "intelligence" can apparently.

I get tired of these people and their spectacular failures. Whenever they get called out on it they claim that they're such professionals who are risking their lives. Professionals are supposed to be good at their jobs, and our intelligence agencies have gone downhill since 9-11. The worst of them have always been the CIA but the NSA is doing it's damndest to take the mantle.

This whole "Russia" thing? If its true then it's yet another failure of the intelligence agencies...I have a feeling that the Russia investigation that will never end because it allows a bunch of bureaucrats to justify their jobs.

The majority of what you point out were decisions made by administrations. It's interesting though how you are more than willing to throw the entire intelligence community under the bus to protect your image of Trump. Did you even read the article or just have a knee jerk reaction to attack the FBI, NSC, and CIA?
 
The majority of what you point out were decisions made by administrations. It's interesting though how you are more than willing to throw the entire intelligence community under the bus to protect your image of Trump. Did you even read the article or just have a knee jerk reaction to attack the FBI, NSC, and CIA?
The evidence is not convincing. The evidence is so unconvincing that the intelligence agencies have to fudge their numbers to justify their lies. Remember the "17 intelligence agencies all agree" bull****? Yeah, it was actually only 3. These people are so insecure. Oh and instead of hiding behind anonymous names, let's get some people named to present their findings and show us the non-classified evidence. They can't even do that. But it goes back to what I said already: if it's true then its a failure of our intelligence agencies. Either they're incompetent or they're lying and it could be both.

And the article, yes I did read it. It's typical establishment spin. For example, it tries to claim that Trump's response is tepid while refusing to acknowledge that Obama learned about the possible Russian interference and did jack **** about it until after Trump won.

And if the Russians got information from the Dem's servers: so what. The DNC is a private organization. Everytime the FBI/CIA claim that the servers were hacked, they embarrass themselves. It was a phishing expedition was is very different from a hack. I'm far more concerned about the Chinese getting access to millions of personnel files. Where's the "17 intelligence agencies" working on that? The Russia story is a load of garbage and I'm not saying that to defend Trump. I'm saying that because I'm basing it off the salacious stories surrounding the behavior of our intelligence agencies when it comes to handling everything about the Russian interference stories.

Lastly, the FBI couldn't even be bothered to inspect the DNC server. Just so you know I'm being non-partisan about it: here's an article from Slate, one of the most liberal organizations in the media.
The FBI is harder to trust on the DNC hack because it relied on CrowdStrike’s analysis.
 
Last edited:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/grap...ion-hacking/?tid=a_inl&utm_term=.3f3b4baa18d6

Interesting read about the Trump administration and how they have been dealing with Russia in regards to foreign policy. Some interesting tidbits while reading:


Apparently intelligence reports have to take the Presidents feeling into consideration....

McMaster and some others in the administration have a more traditional view of Russia and how to interact with them. Other members of Trumps team seem to what to take a completely opposite approach. The article includes a shouting match between McMaster and Bannon.




Another example of Russian policy being a touchy subject around the White House.


This is something we tend to see and it's pretty interesting. Trump gets along pretty well with dictators. He has strained relationships with the democracies of the world.


Overall...the story's main theme is that Trump has a weird relationship with Russia. Before people on this board strike out without reading the article....it doesn't say it's due to collusion. If anything, it says it has to do with Trump's ego and the idea that Russian interference takes away from Trump's election victory.

Let's not tiptoe around the collusion issue. Being impressionable is a weakness when the opposition refuses to participate in good faith.

O'Reilly gave President Trump a golden opportunity to give a limited condemnation of Putin by bringing up political assassinations. President Trump's response defended Putin in light of the assassination accusation.

There's no gray area here. Our president is a traitor. Either his underlings colluded on his behalf and have control over him, or he's in on it; either way, he's unable to uphold his oath of office and should be impeached immediately.

We should NOT have a president where his own cabinet is afraid to share info on a foreign adversary with him. This is catastrophically dangerous.
 
https://www.washingtonpost.com/grap...ion-hacking/?tid=a_inl&utm_term=.3f3b4baa18d6

Interesting read about the Trump administration and how they have been dealing with Russia in regards to foreign policy. Some interesting tidbits while reading:


Apparently intelligence reports have to take the Presidents feeling into consideration....

McMaster and some others in the administration have a more traditional view of Russia and how to interact with them. Other members of Trumps team seem to what to take a completely opposite approach. The article includes a shouting match between McMaster and Bannon.




Another example of Russian policy being a touchy subject around the White House.


This is something we tend to see and it's pretty interesting. Trump gets along pretty well with dictators. He has strained relationships with the democracies of the world.


Overall...the story's main theme is that Trump has a weird relationship with Russia. Before people on this board strike out without reading the article....it doesn't say it's due to collusion. If anything, it says it has to do with Trump's ego and the idea that Russian interference takes away from Trump's election victory.

:roll:

Obama flies 400 million USD to Switzerland so it can be laundered and flown to the leading State sponsor of terrorism in the world
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/08/...risoners.html?referer=https://www.google.com/

Obama lifts Cuba embargo...
https://amp.usatoday.com/story/92042662/

Obama took Russian uranium company that purchased Uranium One off the restricted list of companies with export restrictions...
https://www.google.com/amp/thehill....-led-to-some-exports-to-europe-memos-show?amp
 
...

This is something we tend to see and it's pretty interesting. Trump gets along pretty well with dictators. He has strained relationships with the democracies of the world.

...

This isn't surprising to me at all. I've always said that going to work as an employee every day is like living in a little dictatorship for the 8-10 we are at work. The boss has the final say. There is no questioning his authority. And Trump is/was a business owner. It's how he's been used to dealing with people for forever. And the Trumpsters all want to start allowing business owners to ignore anti-discrimination laws on the basis that the business owners should have the ability to associate with, or not associate with, whomever they choose. Also, how many times does the right say that "the country should be run like a business"? That's because businesses are little dictatorships. And I get the impression that Trump just wants his subordinates (and the country, and the rest of the world's leaders) to do what he says and not make him explain anything.
 
https://www.washingtonpost.com/grap...ion-hacking/?tid=a_inl&utm_term=.3f3b4baa18d6

Interesting read about the Trump administration and how they have been dealing with Russia in regards to foreign policy. Some interesting tidbits while reading:


Apparently intelligence reports have to take the Presidents feeling into consideration....

McMaster and some others in the administration have a more traditional view of Russia and how to interact with them. Other members of Trumps team seem to what to take a completely opposite approach. The article includes a shouting match between McMaster and Bannon.




Another example of Russian policy being a touchy subject around the White House.


This is something we tend to see and it's pretty interesting. Trump gets along pretty well with dictators. He has strained relationships with the democracies of the world.


Overall...the story's main theme is that Trump has a weird relationship with Russia. Before people on this board strike out without reading the article....it doesn't say it's due to collusion. If anything, it says it has to do with Trump's ego and the idea that Russian interference takes away from Trump's election victory.

Clearly, there are some loops that Trump is best left out of. Makes sense to me. He's not exactly one of the adults in the room.

Whatever Trump really thinks of Putin/Russia and why is something we can only speculate about at the moment, but given what we do know, there are reasons to suspect that he's in some way indebted to Russian interests.
 
The evidence is not convincing. The evidence is so unconvincing that the intelligence agencies have to fudge their numbers to justify their lies. Remember the "17 intelligence agencies all agree" bull****? Yeah, it was actually only 3. These people are so insecure. Oh and instead of hiding behind anonymous names, let's get some people named to present their findings and show us the non-classified evidence. They can't even do that. But it goes back to what I said already: if it's true then its a failure of our intelligence agencies. Either they're incompetent or they're lying and it could be both.
It was actually 4 large agencies and the 17 number includes intelligence agencies under the umbrella of the Director of National Intelligence.

And the article, yes I did read it. It's typical establishment spin. For example, it tries to claim that Trump's response is tepid while refusing to acknowledge that Obama learned about the possible Russian interference and did jack **** about it until after Trump won.

Obama officials have stated they didn't want to influence the outcome. I'd think you'd appreciate that...if the Obama administration came out during the election and said Russia was interfering with the election to prevent a Hillary win, I'm pretty sure most Republicans would call foul....and rightly so.

And if the Russians got information from the Dem's servers: so what. The DNC is a private organization. Everytime the FBI/CIA claim that the servers were hacked, they embarrass themselves. It was a phishing expedition was is very different from a hack. I'm far more concerned about the Chinese getting access to millions of personnel files. Where's the "17 intelligence agencies" working on that? The Russia story is a load of garbage and I'm not saying that to defend Trump. I'm saying that because I'm basing it off the salacious stories surrounding the behavior of our intelligence agencies when it comes to handling everything about the Russian interference stories.
They did more than hack the Dems servers. If any email server was hacked you could easily find plenty of emails that would look bad. Do you honestly think the establishment Republicans weren't against Trump in the RNC? The fact a foreign government was hacking a political parties email servers and actively trying to make them lose a Presidential election...how on earth is that a "so what"?
Lastly, the FBI couldn't even be bothered to inspect the DNC server. Just so you know I'm being non-partisan about it: here's an article from Slate, one of the most liberal organizations in the media.
The FBI is harder to trust on the DNC hack because it relied on CrowdStrike’s analysis.
The servers themselves aren't the only intelligence we have that Russia meddled in the election.
 
Let's not tiptoe around the collusion issue. Being impressionable is a weakness when the opposition refuses to participate in good faith.

O'Reilly gave President Trump a golden opportunity to give a limited condemnation of Putin by bringing up political assassinations. President Trump's response defended Putin in light of the assassination accusation.

There's no gray area here. Our president is a traitor. Either his underlings colluded on his behalf and have control over him, or he's in on it; either way, he's unable to uphold his oath of office and should be impeached immediately.

We should NOT have a president where his own cabinet is afraid to share info on a foreign adversary with him. This is catastrophically dangerous.

LOL!! Thanks for a laugh today.
 
:roll:

Obama flies 400 million USD to Switzerland so it can be laundered and flown to the leading State sponsor of terrorism in the world
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/08/...risoners.html?referer=https://www.google.com/

Sending money which was agreed to in a negotiation is not laundering.....

And...?
Obama took Russian uranium company that purchased Uranium One off the restricted list of companies with export restrictions...
https://www.google.com/amp/thehill.c...mos-show?amp
And...?

Are you going to provide points to what you posted?
 
Back
Top Bottom