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

[Allandavid]

Well it could be because it didnt happen, if the NYP says it I doubt it and so should you. Show me some evidence that this rumor that the NYT published has any truth in it. Funny thing people want evidence for a statement made by the White House but if the NYT says something without any indications of the source or reliability of the information it is automatically accepted as fact as long as it is showing Trump in an unfavorable light, is there a double standard there or do people just believe what they want to believe as long as it reinforces their opinion, regardless of how wrong they my be.

Deflect...(3)
Deny......(1)....check..

Oh, and it wasn’t the NY Post as you suggest....it was only the NY Times that reported it...

(“They’re just as bad....fake news...deep state...TDS....” in 5...4...3...)

Edit to add: The story is now being carried independently by CNN and reposted by The Guardian, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal.

 

[wing2000]

Invading and occupying Afghanistan on one hand...

...vs invading and occupying Afghanistan on the other?

Was the Soviet Union attacked by forces from within Afghanistan, killing nearly 3 thousand Soviet citizens?

 

[SoldierOfTheKing]

Well it could be because it didnt happen, if the NYP says it I doubt it and so should you. Show me some evidence that this rumor that the NYT published has any truth in it. Funny thing people want evidence for a statement made by the White House but if the NYT says something without any indications of the source or reliability of the information it is automatically accepted as fact as long as it is showing Trump in an unfavorable light, is there a double standard there or do people just believe what they want to believe as long as it reinforces their opinion, regardless of how wrong they my be.

In the interest of full disclosure, both Russia and the Taliban have flatly denied these claims. The denials could well be true - US government reports are not inherently more truthful than those of Russia. As I've said, though, even if true, considering US support for Afghan militants back in the 80's, the irony is to much for any real outrage.

 

[wing2000]

In the interest of full disclosure, both Russia and the Taliban have flatly denied these claims. The denials could well be true - US government reports are not inherently more truthful than those of Russia. As I've said, though, even if true, considering US support for Afghan militants back in the 80's, the irony is to much for any real outrage.

In the interest of reality, intelligence services from Russia nor the United States would ever admit to such an operation....

 

[Allandavid]

In the interest of full disclosure, both Russia and the Taliban have flatly denied these claims. The denials could well be true - US government reports are not inherently more truthful than those of Russia. As I've said, though, even if true, considering US support for Afghan militants back in the 80's, the irony is to much for any real outrage.

Deflect ...(3)
Deny......(2)

And, in keeping with your spirit of denial, the White House is now touting this ridiculous excuse...

“The White House, without confirming the existence of the U.S. intelligence assessment, said President Trump has never been briefed on the Russian bounty payments, responding to Democratic and Republican critics who charged that Mr. Trump knew of the activity and should have halted it.”

Now, while I think there would be great value in keeping this incompetent leader in the dark as much as possible, tell me that you really think that the Commander in Chief wouldn’t be informed about attacks on his own troops...!

 

[disciple Clint]

Deflect...(3)
Deny......(1)....check..

Oh, and it wasn’t the NY Post as you suggest....it was only the NY Times that reported it...

(“They’re just as bad....fake news...deep state...TDS....” in 5...4...3...)

Edit to add: The story is now being carried independently by CNN and reposted by The Guardian, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal.

is that the best answer?

 

[Allandavid]

is that the best answer?

Is denial the best answer..? No, I think outrage should be the response from anyone who actually puts their country first...!

 

[lasthero]

So you think that it was a good thing. Please explain what was good about it.

It's a misrepresented thing. You make it sound as if Obama just gave them money for no reason. In truth, it was actually their money to start with. We'd frozen that money in sanctions. When they met the conditions to lift those sanctions, they got their money back.

The way you describe it is an oversimplification at best and outright deceptive at worst.

 

[jgarden]

Well it could be because it didnt happen, if the NYP says it I doubt it and so should you. Show me some evidence that this rumor that the NYT published has any truth in it. Funny thing people want evidence for a statement made by the White House but if the NYT says something without any indications of the source or reliability of the information it is automatically accepted as fact as long as it is showing Trump in an unfavorable light, is there a double standard there or do people just believe what they want to believe as long as it reinforces their opinion, regardless of how wrong they my be.

Biden Criticizes Trump Over Intelligence on Russian Bounties on U.S. Troops
- SATURDAY JUNE 27, 2020

“While the White House does not routinely comment on alleged intelligence or internal deliberations, the C.I.A. director, national security adviser and the chief of staff can all confirm that neither the president nor the vice president were briefed on the alleged Russian bounty intelligence,” the White House press secretary, Kayleigh McEnany, said in a statement Saturday afternoon, about 25 hours after the article was posted on The Times’s website.

About six hours later on Saturday night, the director of national intelligence, John Ratcliffe, issued a statement echoing the White House’s assertion that Mr. Trump had not been briefed on the intelligence finding.

But one American official had told The Times that the intelligence finding that the Russians had offered and paid bounties to Afghan militants and criminals had been briefed at the highest levels of the White House

Biden Criticizes Trump Over Intelligence on Russian Bounties on U.S. Troops
*************************************************************************************************************
Given that the White House has had almost 36 hours to deny the story, the only question that remains is how much did the President and Vice President know and when did they know it!

The White House would have us believe that the President and Vice President had been kept "in the dark" since March, but over the past 3 1/2 years this President has denied knowledge of a number of events that has proven to be false - once a Commander-in-Chief starts down that "slippery slope" of short-term expediency, the American public is no longer willing to provide him with the benefit of the doubt!

The most recent example was the dismissal of lead US Attorney Geoffrey Bermon which required the authority of the President - Attorney General Barr stated that he had obtained Trump's permission but when questioned later, the President proceeded to claim that he had no knowledge of this individual who was investigating him and his associates!

 

[SoldierOfTheKing]

Was the Soviet Union attacked by forces from within Afghanistan, killing nearly 3 thousand Soviet citizens?

Would the Reagan administration have responded differently if it was? The US occupied Afghanistan long after these forces were gone, in fact long after the most important of them was confirmed dead.

In the interest of reality, intelligence services from Russia nor the United States would ever admit to such an operation....

...and so these anonymous US officials as reported by the New York Times - you're just going to take their word for it. Suit yourself, I guess.

Now, while I think there would be great value in keeping this incompetent leader in the dark as much as possible, tell me that you really think that the Commander in Chief wouldn’t be informed about attacks on his own troops...!

"while I think there would be great value in keeping this incompetent leader in the dark as much as possible" answers your own question. You've given the rationale, and given the shall I say, unusual relationship between the President and US intelligence agencies, I hesitate to put anything past them. Assuming, of course, that it ever happened at all...
I accept that I just don't know what is communicated in the private meetings of the government. I can only judge results.

And you know what? You don't know either.

Is denial the best answer..? No, I think outrage should be the response from anyone who actually puts their country first...!

As I've said, the response from anyone who actually puts their country first is to bring the troops home. Not to dig us into an even deeper hole by instigating conflict with Russia.

 

[Allandavid]

Assuming, of course, that it ever happened at all...

As I've said, the response from anyone who actually puts their country first is to bring the troops home. Not to dig us into an even deeper hole by instigating conflict with Russia.

I think that counts as one ‘deny’ and one ‘ignore’...

Deflect...(3)
Deny......(3)
Ignore....(1)

But, whatever you do, don’t dare deal with that oversized, incompetent elephant in the room...!

 

[Allandavid]

..and so these anonymous US officials as reported by the New York Times - you're just going to take their word for it. Suit yourself, I guess.
.

Ummmm....CNN now reports independently via EUROPEAN officials who make same statement...

 

[SoldierOfTheKing]

Are these European officials also anonymous?

 

[disciple Clint]

It's a misrepresented thing. You make it sound as if Obama just gave them money for no reason. In truth, it was actually their money to start with. We'd frozen that money in sanctions. When they met the conditions to lift those sanctions, they got their money back.

The way you describe it is an oversimplification at best and outright deceptive at worst.

let me make it simple we should have keep the money it would have saved many lives, ask any vet what they think. Obama did it because he was desperate to make a deal and he made a bad one at that.

 

[Allandavid]

Are these European officials also anonymous?

Deflect....(3)
Deny.......(4)
Ignore.....(1)

 

[Allandavid]

let me make it simple we should have keep the money it would have saved many lives, ask any vet what they think. Obama did it because he was desperate to make a deal and he made a bad one at that.

For the last time, take your off-topic contributions elsewhere...!

 

[jgarden]

Biden Criticizes Trump Over Intelligence on Russian Bounties on U.S. Troops
- SATURDAY JUNE 27, 2020

“While the White House does not routinely comment on alleged intelligence or internal deliberations, the C.I.A. director, national security adviser and the chief of staff can all confirm that neither the president nor the vice president were briefed on the alleged Russian bounty intelligence,” the White House press secretary, Kayleigh McEnany, said in a statement Saturday afternoon, about 25 hours after the article was posted on The Times’s website.

About six hours later on Saturday night, the director of national intelligence, John Ratcliffe, issued a statement echoing the White House’s assertion that Mr. Trump had not been briefed on the intelligence finding.

But one American official had told The Times that the intelligence finding that the Russians had offered and paid bounties to Afghan militants and criminals had been briefed at the highest levels of the White House

Biden Criticizes Trump Over Intelligence on Russian Bounties on U.S. Troops
*************************************************************************************************************
Given that the White House has had almost 36 hours to deny the story, the only question that remains is how much did the President and Vice President know and when did they know it!

The White House would have us believe that the President and Vice President had been kept "in the dark" since March, but over the past 3 1/2 years this President has denied knowledge of a number of events that has proven to be false - once a Commander-in-Chief starts down that "slippery slope" of short-term expediency, the American public is no longer willing to provide him with the benefit of the doubt!

 

[disciple Clint]

For the last time, take your off-topic contributions elsewhere...!

Deflect....(3)
Deny.......(4)
Ignore.....(1)

 

[disciple Clint]

can anyone explain in terms that Biden might understand that there is a difference between "being kept in the dark" and something not existing.

 

[Allandavid]

Deflect....(3)
Deny.......(4)
Ignore.....(1)

Good grief....if you’d been paying attention, you would have noticed that those 3 categories of excuse by people like you were part of my original question for this thread...!