Russian Bounty on US Soldiers...and Trump’s known for months...

Actually it's looking like the Trumps have decided to take action. This'll teach them: Trump to Retaliate Against Russia by Sending Jared Kushner to Advise Kremlin on Coronavirus Response

Russian Bounty on US Soldiers...and Trump’s known for months...

Now there are reports that Trump was briefed as early as January 2019 by National Security Adviser John Bolton!

The President's playing of his "I didn't know" card is now being challenged by the hour - apparently it was widely reported to America's own allies!

cow451 said:

He should have known sooner and announced some action such as pulling back on the G7 effort.

He is either lying about not being briefed or has such a poor leadership style that his staff has to hide things from him. Where does the buck stop?

Click to expand...

Kentonio said:

You think the president knowing about a bounty on US soldiers by a foreign state and doing nothing doesn’t reflect badly on him? Seriously? Especially when just a few months later he was lavishing praise on that same foreign state.

Click to expand...

Both of you are coming across as what are commonly known as 'armchair experts'. What makes you think that you know as much as President Trump and his advisors? How can you be sure you have all the available information on this topic? Security advisors would most probably have presented a range of possible options for action. Have you seen a list of all the possible courses of action that President Trump could have chosen from? Has it occurred to you that possibilities presented to President Trump would probably have included the option of 'wait for a better moment to act', or 'wait to gather more intelligence on the ground'? Do you think that it might be necessary to try and determine exactly who in Russia is in charge of this bounty operation, and whether Putin might have given the orders for it to proceed, before launching into some kind of counter-action? If President Trump had been offered the option to use special forces to eliminate those supplying bounties to the Taliban, do you think he would just come out and say it publicly to the whole world. Would he wait until the operation had been successfully concluded? Would he decide that it was best to say nothing at all and wait to see if the Russians stop the bounty payments when their agents repeatedly fail to return from Afghanistan?

I hope that when you think about this properly, you can see that the problem with using this kind of information to attack President Trump is that you almost certainly don't know everything there is to know. In fact, most people in the CIA probably don't know any more than you do, because material obtained from intelligence operations will most likely be highly classified. That means access will most probably be on a need-to-know basis, so only those working on it will have complete access, and only those creating a list of potential strategies and options for dealing with it will know all the options President Trump rejected. In fact, knowing that President Trump is a patriot, I think it highly unlikely that he doesn't care about this. More likely he is biding his time, and waiting for the right time or waiting for better intelligence. I also don't assume that President Trump is lying. How many issues do you think are on the security agenda every time meetings are held? Do you think he remembers details of everything, just in case some media organisation gets hold of a story? Trump-haters really need to get a grip, and stop assuming that they know everything.

JustSomeBloke said:

Both of you are coming across as what are commonly known as 'armchair experts'. What makes you think that you know as much as President Trump and his advisors? How can you be sure you have all the available information on this topic? Security advisors would most probably have presented a range of possible options for action. Have you seen a list of all the possible courses of action that President Trump could have chosen from? Has it occurred to you that possibilities presented to President Trump would probably have included the option of 'wait for a better moment to act', or 'wait to gather more intelligence on the ground'? Do you think that it might be necessary to try and determine exactly who in Russia is in charge of this bounty operation, and whether Putin might have given the orders for it to proceed, before launching into some kind of counter-action? If President Trump had been offered the option to use special forces to eliminate those supplying bounties to the Taliban, do you think he would just come out and say it publicly to the whole world. Would he wait until the operation had been successfully concluded? Would he decide that it was best to say nothing at all and wait to see if the Russians stop the bounty payments when their agents repeatedly fail to return from Afghanistan?

I hope that when you think about this properly, you can see that the problem with using this kind of information to attack President Trump is that you almost certainly don't know everything there is to know. In fact, most people in the CIA probably don't know any more than you do, because material obtained from intelligence operations will most likely be highly classified. That means access will most probably be on a need-to-know basis, so only those working on it will have complete access, and only those creating a list of potential strategies and options for dealing with it will know all the options President Trump rejected. In fact, knowing that President Trump is a patriot, I think it highly unlikely that he doesn't care about this. More likely he is biding his time, and waiting for the right time or waiting for better intelligence. I also don't assume that President Trump is lying. How many issues do you think are on the security agenda every time meetings are held? Do you think he remembers details of everything, just in case some media organisation gets hold of a story? Trump-haters really need to get a grip, and stop assuming that they know everything.

Click to expand...

Combined with his "White Power" tweet, this President has played his "I didn't know" card twice this weekend alone - given his track-record of playing "fast and loose" with the truth over the past 3 1/2 years, the American public is no longer willing to give him "the benefit of the doubt!"

When American soldiers are deployed in the field, they and their families should have every expectation that their Commander-in-Chief has their back - one way or another the truth will eventually emerge, and I doubt that there are many in the intelligence community and the Pentagon who are willing to take "the hit" to protect this President!

JustSomeBloke said:

Both of you are coming across as what are commonly known as 'armchair experts'. What makes you think that you know as much as President Trump and his advisors? How can you be sure you have all the available information on this topic? Security advisors would most probably have presented a range of possible options for action. Have you seen a list of all the possible courses of action that President Trump could have chosen from? Has it occurred to you that possibilities presented to President Trump would probably have included the option of 'wait for a better moment to act', or 'wait to gather more intelligence on the ground'? Do you think that it might be necessary to try and determine exactly who in Russia is in charge of this bounty operation, and whether Putin might have given the orders for it to proceed, before launching into some kind of counter-action? If President Trump had been offered the option to use special forces to eliminate those supplying bounties to the Taliban, do you think he would just come out and say it publicly to the whole world. Would he wait until the operation had been successfully concluded? Would he decide that it was best to say nothing at all and wait to see if the Russians stop the bounty payments when their agents repeatedly fail to return from Afghanistan?

I hope that when you think about this properly, you can see that the problem with using this kind of information to attack President Trump is that you almost certainly don't know everything there is to know. In fact, most people in the CIA probably don't know any more than you do, because material obtained from intelligence operations will most likely be highly classified. That means access will most probably be on a need-to-know basis, so only those working on it will have complete access, and only those creating a list of potential strategies and options for dealing with it will know all the options President Trump rejected. In fact, knowing that President Trump is a patriot, I think it highly unlikely that he doesn't care about this. More likely he is biding his time, and waiting for the right time or waiting for better intelligence. I also don't assume that President Trump is lying. How many issues do you think are on the security agenda every time meetings are held? Do you think he remembers details of everything, just in case some media organisation gets hold of a story? Trump-haters really need to get a grip, and stop assuming that they know everything.

Click to expand...

If reporting is correct, the Pentagon has been "pounding down the door" to get Trump to respond to this issue. Even if it was something they needed to wait on, why would they be out the loop?

This coming out actually makes some of the military responses during the protests make a whole lot more since. I've read that normally the GOP gets 60% or so of the military vote. I wonder if that changes this year.

camille70 said:

If reporting is correct, the Pentagon has been "pounding down the door" to get Trump to respond to this issue. Even if it was something they needed to wait on, why would they be out the loop?

This coming out actually makes some of the military responses during the protests make a whole lot more since. I've read that normally the GOP gets 60% or so of the military vote. I wonder if that changes this year.

Click to expand...

How's that Seattle 'No Cop' thing going?

Apparently the report of Russian bounties was no secret within the US intelligence community, the Pentagon and many of America's allies - the report by the NYT should trigger a groundswell of confirmations from a variety of sources, none of whom harbor feelings of loyalty towards this President!

Donald J Trump has long been considered a major security risk by US authorities, so his refusal to hold Putin accountable for targeting US troops in Afghanistan merely confirms what many have long suspected!

The world has had a bounty on our soldiers since we became a nation. Only now are we all in a panic mode about it.

TexFire316 said:

The world has had a bounty on our soldiers since we became a nation. Only now are we all in a panic mode about it.

Click to expand...

If this had been a Democratic president who ignored this bounty, Trump supporters would be demanding his "scalp" - congressional Republicans, who remain silent on this dereliction of duty, are placing yet another nail in their collective coffins come November!

The White House dithered for days trying to manufacture a less than credible response - the assertion that this President was unaware of this bounty started to unravel before our eyes the moment it was made public!

jgarden said:

If this had been a Democratic president who ignored this bounty, Trump supporters would be demanding his "scalp" - congressional Republicans, who remain silent on this dereliction of duty, are placing yet another nail in their collective coffins come November!

The White House dithered for days trying to manufacture a less than credible response - the assertion that this President was unaware of this bounty started to unravel before our eyes the moment it was made public!

Click to expand...

Prior to that they’d been dithering over the issue for several months. As usual, Trump appears to be more concerned with ‘who snitched?’ than dealing with the real issues.

SoldierOfTheKing said:

Those are same people who conspired to send them overseas in the first place. Not the Russians, not the Taliban, but the stuffed suits of the deep state in the State Department and the Department of Defense. The president has fired some of them, so I guess that's a start?

Click to expand...

Apparently that's also an end. Donald lacks the courage to even admit he knew. #greenlivesdontmatter.

Although we can't forget that the soldiers themselves asked for it by enlisting in the first place, right? Donald should probably thank Putin...

...again.

JustSomeBloke said:

Both of you are coming across as what are commonly known as 'armchair experts'. What makes you think that you know as much as President Trump and his advisors? How can you be sure you have all the available information on this topic? Security advisors would most probably have presented a range of possible options for action. Have you seen a list of all the possible courses of action that President Trump could have chosen from? Has it occurred to you that possibilities presented to President Trump would probably have included the option of 'wait for a better moment to act', or 'wait to gather more intelligence on the ground'? Do you think that it might be necessary to try and determine exactly who in Russia is in charge of this bounty operation, and whether Putin might have given the orders for it to proceed, before launching into some kind of counter-action? If President Trump had been offered the option to use special forces to eliminate those supplying bounties to the Taliban, do you think he would just come out and say it publicly to the whole world. Would he wait until the operation had been successfully concluded? Would he decide that it was best to say nothing at all and wait to see if the Russians stop the bounty payments when their agents repeatedly fail to return from Afghanistan?

I hope that when you think about this properly, you can see that the problem with using this kind of information to attack President Trump is that you almost certainly don't know everything there is to know. In fact, most people in the CIA probably don't know any more than you do, because material obtained from intelligence operations will most likely be highly classified. That means access will most probably be on a need-to-know basis, so only those working on it will have complete access, and only those creating a list of potential strategies and options for dealing with it will know all the options President Trump rejected. In fact, knowing that President Trump is a patriot, I think it highly unlikely that he doesn't care about this. More likely he is biding his time, and waiting for the right time or waiting for better intelligence. I also don't assume that President Trump is lying. How many issues do you think are on the security agenda every time meetings are held? Do you think he remembers details of everything, just in case some media organisation gets hold of a story? Trump-haters really need to get a grip, and stop assuming that they know everything.

Click to expand...

Unfortunately, I am not President. I would read briefings, ask questions and demand answers. I would take Putin to task publicly and impose whatever economic and diplomatic strategy was available. I would NOT deny responsibility by claiming nobody told me. If indeed the information wasn’t given to me I’d roll heads to get advisors willing to give the news, good or bad, in these briefings. The “buck” (responsibility) would always stop at my desk. Period.

Trump is a whining crybaby coward. Feel free to report me.

Tom 1 said:

Prior to that they’d be dithering over the issue for several months. As usual, Trump appears to be more concerned with ‘who snitched?’ than dealing with the real issues.

Click to expand...

To Donald, that's the only issue that ever matters.

JustSomeBloke said:

Both of you are coming across as what are commonly known as 'armchair experts'. What makes you think that you know as much as President Trump and his advisors? How can you be sure you have all the available information on this topic? Security advisors would most probably have presented a range of possible options for action. Have you seen a list of all the possible courses of action that President Trump could have chosen from? Has it occurred to you that possibilities presented to President Trump would probably have included the option of 'wait for a better moment to act', or 'wait to gather more intelligence on the ground'? Do you think that it might be necessary to try and determine exactly who in Russia is in charge of this bounty operation, and whether Putin might have given the orders for it to proceed, before launching into some kind of counter-action? If President Trump had been offered the option to use special forces to eliminate those supplying bounties to the Taliban, do you think he would just come out and say it publicly to the whole world. Would he wait until the operation had been successfully concluded? Would he decide that it was best to say nothing at all and wait to see if the Russians stop the bounty payments when their agents repeatedly fail to return from Afghanistan?

I hope that when you think about this properly, you can see that the problem with using this kind of information to attack President Trump is that you almost certainly don't know everything there is to know. In fact, most people in the CIA probably don't know any more than you do, because material obtained from intelligence operations will most likely be highly classified. That means access will most probably be on a need-to-know basis, so only those working on it will have complete access, and only those creating a list of potential strategies and options for dealing with it will know all the options President Trump rejected. In fact, knowing that President Trump is a patriot, I think it highly unlikely that he doesn't care about this. More likely he is biding his time, and waiting for the right time or waiting for better intelligence. I also don't assume that President Trump is lying. How many issues do you think are on the security agenda every time meetings are held? Do you think he remembers details of everything, just in case some media organisation gets hold of a story? Trump-haters really need to get a grip, and stop assuming that they know everything.

Click to expand...

Yeah like maybe some stuff, and, uh, probably, yeah that’s it, like probably. Yeah uh it was maybe like some stuff, kind of, like yeah.

Tom 1 said:

Actually it's looking like the Trumps have decided to take action. This'll teach them: Trump to Retaliate Against Russia by Sending Jared Kushner to Advise Kremlin on Coronavirus Response

Click to expand...

Worse and worse... isn't sending Kushner to "help" a violation of Article 37 of the Geneva Conventions?

Tom 1 said:

There are several options on the table, sanctions and curtailing business operations in the US linked to the Kremlin would be a couple. Trump, like any world leader, has teams of people presenting options he can choose from, have been presenting since Feb. He's made a choice not to do anything, not because of a lack of options but for some other reason.

Click to expand...

We don't know what he has planned yet. If I was running the country I would be a little hesitant to start a conflict right now given the weakened state of our country. On the plus side every other country is in the same position as we are.

SoldierOfTheKing said:

Well, the best way to avoid that is to bring them home alive. Now. It's looking like it's just about to happen to.

Trump administration finalizing plan to withdraw 4,000 troops from Afghanistan

Click to expand...

I agree. I don't see the relationship between this and ignoring the fact that Russia is literally paying people to kill our soldiers though.

Peace is achievable, if you want it. Or we can just elect Biden in November, derail the whole thing, and go back to endless wars that aren't meant to be won...

Click to expand...

What do you base that on?

Perhaps that's what this whole thing is all about.

‘Russian bounties for Taliban’ story clearly meant to derail US military pullout, says Moscow’s special envoy to Afghanistan

Click to expand...

You'll notice that I said more or less the same thing in post #195, but this is a rather clever twisting of reality by Russia Today. Responding to Russia's actions does not require maintaining troops in Afghanistan. Rather, the intent behind an operation like that is to ramp up insurgent activity so that we change our minds and decide not to leave. Once discovered, it fails. I don't see anyone here calling to stay in Afghanistan or attack Russia over this.

Arc F1 said:

We don't know what he has planned yet. If I was running the country I would be a little hesitant to start a conflict right now given the weakened state of our country. On the plus side every other country is in the same position as we are.

Click to expand...

Starting a armed conflict with Russia do you mean? I doubt it anyone is considering that. There are plenty of other options, there are already some limited sanctions in place against Russia, and several other countries, that the US/EU conform with. Complete inaction over months is a poor choice by any standards, unless the intent is actually to signal weakness/indifference.

TLK Valentine said:

Worse and worse... isn't sending Kushner to "help" a violation of Article 37 of the Geneva Conventions?

Click to expand...

No, not at all, it’s listed under the alternative articles (the ones written with a sharpie) under ‘not bad but if she wasn’t my daughter she’d have married me instead, obviously, uh other countries? Yeah send him there great yeah. Golf? Ok (it goes on for a while but you get the picture). True story.