Trump Rejects Intel Report

[bhsmte]

Agree. Every President has a tendency to push the Intel that meets his objective. Some push the boundaries much further though. Trump will probably set new standards in that regard....

The democrats on the intel committee, saw the same intelligence as Bush and they could have screamed bloody murder if they disagreed, which they didn't.

 

[bhsmte]

Many terrorists come from the families of "collateral damage"

Many terrorists come from our ridiculously bad and short sighted foreign policy which has been horrific since the 1950s.

Many terrorists come from our hypocrisy which is so obvious that even a blind man can see.

I know we like to say terrorists are just jealous and hate our freedom... But the hard truth to face is that we are very culpable in creating terrorists, to include the non-existent terrorists that the Neo Cons and alt right and corporate leftists use to maintain control of the populace, erode our rights, and keep money flowing to the Military Industrial Complex...

Agree. A motivation to hate, is what drives a terrorist and this can be bred, in many ways.

My question though, was in related to geography.

 

[CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN]

1 Samuel 8:4-22 - sad history on what it means to turn Rulership over from God to men...
2 Corinthians 11:14-15

14 And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.

Are you saying Trump is Satan?

 

[Saucy]

Anyway, intelligence isn't always correct. It's been wrong about several issues, including the war.

The democrats on the intel committee, saw the same intelligence as Bush and they could have screamed bloody murder if they disagreed, which they didn't.

Agreed. This was my point. England and our other allies all had their OWN intelligence sources. Both Bush and both sides in Congress and the Senate were all for it. It leads me to believe one of three things:

1) The intelligence was wrong
2) Someone lied (not Bush, because he can't create his own intelligence). I'm not in favor of this theory because I don't think the intelligence agencies of multiple countries would lie. There was enough evidence something was going on to get bi-partisan support.
3) He did have weapons, but he moved them. There are a few ideas making the rounds that Saddam actually sent his weapons to Syria or buried them in the desert. I don't know about nuclear capabilities, but he used chemical weapons on his own people.

 

[littlebopeek]

Are you saying Trump is Satan?

All human government is allowed by God in order to show us how imperfect and controlled by Satan they ALL are...please, PLEASE give me one example of a righteous human government and i will gladly retract the biblically deduced statement that ALL governments are agents of Satan, even if the people in them have good intentions.

 

[Saucy]

All human government is allowed by God in order to show us how imperfect and controlled by Satan they ALL are...please, PLEASE give me one example of a righteous human government and i will gladly retract the biblically deduced statement that ALL governments are agents of Satan, even if the people in them have good intentions.

Romans 13:1-2, "Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves."

Doesn't don't just 'allow' human government. God chooses our leaders. Why would He choose our leaders and tell us to submit to our authorities, yet our leaders are really chosen by Satan?

As for your example of one righteous government, I will humbly suggest you show me one righteous thing man can or has done EVER, not just in government. Our righteousness is as filthy rags. And even when Jesus chose His disciples, they were all a mess too.

 

[bhsmte]

Anyway, intelligence isn't always correct. It's been wrong about several issues, including the war.

Agreed. This was my point. England and our other allies all had their OWN intelligence sources. Both Bush and both sides in Congress and the Senate were all for it. It leads me to believe one of three things:

1) The intelligence was wrong
2) Someone lied (not Bush, because he can't create his own intelligence). I'm not in favor of this theory because I don't think the intelligence agencies of multiple countries would lie. There was enough evidence something was going on to get bi-partisan support.
3) He did have weapons, but he moved them. There are a few ideas making the rounds that Saddam actually sent his weapons to Syria or buried them in the desert. I don't know about nuclear capabilities, but he used chemical weapons on his own people.

Intelligence communities have a tendency to morph into their own self serving mode. This is why I never believe anything the IC tells the public and why those on the intel committee, likely are told what they want to hear in many cases as well.

 

[bhsmte]

Are you saying Trump is Satan?

Every president is considered Satan by some group. Some on these boards, claimed Obama was Satan.

 

[Greg J.]

Where do they come from?

For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms. (Ephesians 6:12, 1984 NIV)

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

The Senators (several democrats included), where also involved in analyzing the intel and made the same mistake.

So may we have permission, please, to learn from that mistake?

 

[bhsmte]

So may we have permission, please, to learn from that mistake?

That would be a good idea, yes.

 

[Goonie]

....when the results do not jive with his political agenda, reject it:

Officials in President Trump’s administration Friday downplayed an intelligence report by the Homeland Security Department that contradicts the White House’s main arguement for implementing a travel ban on seven predominantly Muslim countries.

The report, which was viewed by The Wall Street Journal and Associated Press, determined that the "country of citizenship is unlikely to be a reliable indicator of potential terrorist activity."

Trump rejects DHS intelligence report on travel ban

You do wonder how the Trump Whitehouse would treat a report of terrorists planning an attack on two towers....

 

[wing2000]

The original travel ban Executive Order was not based on any current threat assessment. The latest DHS report confirms that immigration policies that discriminate based on national origin is not an effective means to prevent terrorism.

My question is: Will Trump make information-based decisions or will he continue to implement immigration policy based fear?

 

[bhsmte]

The original travel ban Executive Order was not based on any current threat assessment. The latest DHS report confirms that immigration policies that discriminate based on national origin is not an effective means to prevent terrorism.

My question is: Will Trump make information-based decisions or will he continue to implement immigration policy based fear?

Is an information based decision, one you claim everyone will agree on? Information is interpreted by different people in different ways and I am quite certain, not everyone in the IC, agrees on the threat level of certain countries.

The bottom line is, whether a democrat or republican in office, the president has leeway to assess the information and implement certain immigration policies, within reason.

 

[rambot]

Does any Trump supporter have problems with an administration that does not make fact based decisions?

 

[wing2000]

Is an information based decision, one you claim everyone will agree on? Information is interpreted by different people in different ways and I am quite certain, not everyone in the IC, agrees on the threat level of certain countries.

We obviously don't know what input the IC at large had for the DHS report
DHS intelligence report disputes threat posed by 7 travel ban nations:

The bottom line is, whether a democrat or republican in office, the president has leeway to assess the information and implement certain immigration policies, within reason.

THe President needs to start by accepting the findings of the IC. So far he hasn't.

 

[Nithavela]

Agreed. This was my point. England and our other allies all had their OWN intelligence sources.

Some countries didn't follow the US into this pointless war. Germany didn't, and was decried. France didn't, and in the USA, french fries turned to freedom fries.

 

[dgiharris]

Not to rehash an old argument but to be fair, the Intel Mistake of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction was not that big a mistake in terms of "error" by the Intel Community.

Fact #1: Saddam had WMDs because he ACTUALLY USED chemical warfare agents as recently as the late 80s and used them on more than one occassion as verified by actual film. This is not in dispute whatsoever.
Fact #2: Saddam lost the first Iraq war and signed a treaty in which he was to give UN inspection teams free reign to ensure decommission of his WMDs. Well, Saddam had many areas which he denied access to inspectors, thus preventing inspectors to confirm decommission of WMDs
Fact #3: Saddam had plenty of time during the build up of coalition forces to hide WMDs.

Yes, imo the US was premature to go to war with Iraq. However, given the facts above, it was not unreasonable to assume Iraq had WMDs. Sure, hind sight is 20/20 and all and overall I do not like the decision that was made, but the Intel was not "fake" it was just "reasonably" wrong. THen factor in that the US was still reeling emotionally from being attacked, invading Iraq given the context of the time was not completely unreasonable. From a Political Science perspective, it was a chance to do several things:

#1) Send a signal of asymetric response to all would-be terrorists. You blow up a building of ours, we invade an entire country of yours
#2) Show the world that US will be overly aggressive in responding to terrorism
#3) Build a flourishing democracy in a part of the world in which such a government was thought to be impossible

Invading Iraq was a bit of a gamble. If successful, it secures the US's security for decades. If unsuccessful, it gives the US a PR blackeye and fosters the next generation of terrorist which arguably would exist regardless. Then of course is the loss of life which is enormous but from the Point of View of State actors, is a secondary consideration to the State's National Interests.

Again, after weighing all the pros and cons I would have decided against invading Iraq, however that doesn't mean there was not merit in doing it nor that the INtel was horribly and obviously wrong. To say so is to be disingenuous and to use 20/20 hind sight vision in your analysis.

 

[Nithavela]

#1) Send a signal of asymetric response to all would-be terrorists. You blow up a building of ours, we invade an entire country of yours

Sadly, the wrong country was chosen.

#2) Show the world that US will be overly aggressive in responding to terrorism

Which led to much celebration from terrorism recruiters.

#3) Build a flourishing democracy in a part of the world in which such a government was thought to be impossible

Yeah, how did that one work out?

 

[dgiharris]

Sadly, the wrong country was chosen.

Depends on perspective. Have you ever heard the saying the atomic bombs weren't just dropped on Japan but on Moscow as well?

From the standpoint of State vs State politics, defeating the 4th largest military within 91 days is something that would give the US tremendous deterrence in future potential conflicts.

Which led to much celebration from terrorism recruiters.

Yeah, how did that one work out?

Contrary to popular belief, not sure how this worked out.

There are two levels to this.
--State vs State politics
--State vs Terrorist politics

From the standpoint of State vs State politics, the invasion of Iraq increased America's political power. Basically, States now have to fear US preemptive action if the US has cause, something that until Iraq States did not fear.

From the standpoing of State vs Terrorist Politics... I honestly am not sure.
If I were the leader of Iran, would I be likely to sponsor terrorists now knowing that if something linked directly back to Iran that the US would be willing to invade?

Then the question becomes does that deterrence outweigh the support our operations have given to sub-State terrorist orgs?

The US has not suffered a major attack since 9/11, but would that have happened if we didn't invade Iraq? Will the next terror attack be because we invaded Iraq? It is impossible to say.

Truth be told (because I do try to be truthful in debates) I don't know how it will work out. The Iraqi invasion had "potential" to further US interests and security however we did not execute effectively in terms of "after" the war. As Colin Powell argued vehemently, taking Iraq over would be easy, building it back up and maintaining control after would be very hard. He advised against NOT doing it, but Bush and his croonies overruled him. Then he is quoted with the line, "Iraq is like Pottery Barn, you break it you buy it..." or something to that effect.

I dunno, it's a hard topic to debate mostly because US foreign policy has been so bad for so long...