[RedSpawn]

Winstonm, on 2017-August-03, 12:51, said:

Yet they were competent enough for Kushner, Trump Jr., and Manafort to organize and hold a meeting with Russians in hopes of getting dirt on Hillary.

Correction: One was a Russian-American. More specifically, a Russian-American lobbyist whose activities and bank records we have yet to subpoena and vet.

And still no one has answered how in the world a former Soviet military counterintelligence officer was granted American citizenship in the 1st place. And how is he allowed to be in Washington D.C. to influence politicians?

Also, are we suggesting that Akhemtshin was under the control of the Russian government? Is he an American who now works on behalf of Russia as a "foreign" agent? Is he a spy? What exactly is he?

Quote

Akhmetshin has been a presence in the US for more than 20 years, and his history has been a source of intrigue for months. Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley requested more information about his immigration history in April as his committee investigated a complaint that Akhmetshin, Veselnitskaya and others engaged in undisclosed lobbying on behalf of the Kremlin to weaken the Magnitsky Act.

http://www.cnn.com/2...shin/index.html

[Winstonm]

nige1, on 2017-August-03, 13:04, said:

Kaitlyn seems to think that only a psychopath can counter democratic attempts at social welfare: if a politician seems effective, immorality and impropriety are acceptable.

I fear that Kaitlyn under-rates Arms-lobby influence. It forced Donald to reverse his hands-off foreign policy, so that the US...

• Again backs Jihadists against Syria.
• Resumes fire-works displays of bombs and rockets.
• Imposes more sanctions on Russia (and, indirectly, on Europe).

The reaction is predictable: 1984-type policies are popular with those paranoid about Russia and Socialism.

When Donald attempted peaceful dialogue with Putin, it triggered accusations that Russia was trying to influence the presidential election. Hypocrisy: because it's US policy to undermine foreign elections (in South America, Ukraine, and elsewhere).

Emails were leaked that revealed political dirty tricks against a presidential candidate. Evidence of Russian responsibility is controversial. But even were the accusation true, the effect was the defence of democracy against those undermining it.

Politicians of all parties seem tainted, at all levels. Putin seems brighter but is as bad as any of them. Hilary might be a worse war-monger. We need a global grass-roots campaign against corruption.

Some questions.

If Trump's dialogue with Putin triggered the Russian allegations, how did Obama know about the intelligence reports prior to the election and prior to Trump dialogue with Putin? What information do you have that the U.S. has a policy to undermine democratic elections? And what causes you to call the claim of Russian interference "controversial"?

[nige1]

Winstonm, on 2017-August-03, 14:42, said:

Some questions. If Trump's dialogue with Putin triggered the Russian allegations, how did Obama know about the intelligence reports prior to the election and prior to Trump dialogue with Putin? What information do you have that the U.S. has a policy to undermine democratic elections? And what causes you to call the claim of Russian interference "controversial"?

When did Obama reveal the contents of these intelligence reports? In the past, secret service statements have not always been reliable (e.g. WMD, Gas attacks). But I'm not privy to evidence, for or against current propaganda.
Historically, the US has influenced foreign elections, in accord with its interests (e.g. Chile's Salvador Allende, Ukraine's Viktor Yanukovych).
Russia is likely to adopt a similar policy but I'm unaware of reliable evidence from the US presidential election.

[Winstonm]

nige1, on 2017-August-03, 16:27, said:

When did Obama reveal the contents of these intelligence reports? In the past, secret service statements have not always been reliable (e.g. WMD, Gas attacks). But I'm not privy to evidence, for or against current propaganda.
Historically, the US has influenced foreign elections, in accord with its interests (e.g. Chile's Salvador Allende, Ukraine's Viktor Yanukovych).
Russia is likely to adopt a similar policy but I'm unaware of reliable evidence from the US presidential election.

That isn't much detail. Perhaps your information source is lacking in detail, too?

[nige1]

Winstonm, on 2017-August-03, 19:08, said:

That isn't much detail. Perhaps your information source is lacking in detail, too?

What information source? We suffer from a lack of facts and a dearth of reliable detail

[Winstonm]

nige1, on 2017-August-03, 19:27, said:

What information source? We suffer from a lack of facts and a dearth of reliable detail

Can we truly complain about state secrets? Once we decide to form a government and be governed, we grant certain powers. One of those powers is a degree of opacity.

The only thing I know is what I read and hear and therefore, in my view, the sources of my information are important. Multiple news sources reported that the U.S. intelligence agencies all agreed that Russia was responsible for the hacks of the DNC and Podesta accounts, and that information was given to President Obama prior to the election.

[RedSpawn]

nige1, on 2017-August-03, 16:27, said:

When did Obama reveal the contents of these intelligence reports? In the past, secret service statements have not always been reliable (e.g. WMD, Gas attacks). But I'm not privy to evidence, for or against current propaganda.
Historically, the US has influenced foreign elections, in accord with its interests (e.g. Chile's Salvador Allende, Ukraine's Viktor Yanukovych).
Russia is likely to adopt a similar policy but I'm unaware of reliable evidence from the US presidential election.

How dare you suggest even the slightest appearance of impropriety about our foreign election meddling? We had noble intentions and acted in good faith and in the best interests of the affected people. {sarcasm included}

See http://freebeacon.co...eign-elections/

https://spectator.or...s-six-examples/

https://www.scribd.c...rson#from_embed ==> official letter from U.S. Senate about our potential foreign election meddling in Macedonia.

American exceptionalism allows us to meddle in other countries' elections without expecting any chickens to come home to roost in our federal elections.

[RedSpawn]

Winstonm, on 2017-August-03, 19:08, said:

That isn't much detail. Perhaps your information source is lacking in detail, too?

http://freebeacon.co...eign-elections/

https://spectator.or...s-six-examples/

https://www.scribd.c...rson#from_embed ==> official letter from U.S. Senate about our potential foreign election meddling in Macedonia.

Gauntlet dropped. Let the investigations begin and the subpoenas for banking records flow. Follow the money.

[RedSpawn]

Winstonm, on 2017-August-03, 21:27, said:

Can we truly complain about state secrets? Once we decide to form a government and be governed, we grant certain powers. One of those powers is a degree of opacity.

The only thing I know is what I read and hear and therefore, in my view, the sources of my information are important. Multiple news sources reported that the U.S. intelligence agencies all agreed that Russia was responsible for the hacks of the DNC and Podesta accounts, and that information was given to President Obama prior to the election.

Yes and 13 Western intelligence sources confirmed Iraq (Saddam Hussein) had weapons of mass destruction and yet all 13 of them were wrong on the matter which lead to an extended war campaign costing approx. US $1 trillion and loss of lives--all built on faulty intelligence.

Read George Bush's speech giving the ultimatum to Iraq before we went to war. Our confidence and resolve in this matter was compelling, but we were wrong on so many levels. Our mindset changed since 09/11 and our need to respond militarily and get revenge for that day of infamy took precedence over our need to get our facts right.

http://www.americanr...shiraq31703.htm

Quote

The Iraqi regime has used diplomacy as a ploy to gain time and advantage. It has uniformly defied Security Council resolutions demanding full disarmament. Over the years, U.N. weapon inspectors have been threatened by Iraqi officials, electronically bugged, and systematically deceived. Peaceful efforts to disarm the Iraqi regime have failed again and again -- because we are not dealing with peaceful men.

Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised. This regime has already used weapons of mass destruction against Iraq's neighbors and against Iraq's people.

The regime has a history of reckless aggression in the Middle East. It has a deep hatred of America and our friends. And it has aided, trained, and harbored terrorists, including operatives of al Qaeda.

The danger is clear: using chemical, biological, or, one day, nuclear weapons, obtained with the help of Iraq, the terrorists could fulfill their stated ambitions and kill thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent people in our country, or any other.

The United States and other nations did nothing to deserve or invite this threat. But we will do everything to defeat it. Instead of drifting along toward tragedy, we will set a course toward safety. Before the day of horror can come, before it is too late to act, this danger will be removed.

The United States of America has the sovereign authority to use force in assuring its own national security. That duty falls to me, as Commander-in-Chief, by the oath I have sworn, by the oath I will keep.

How do we know that the same intelligence sources have gotten their facts right THIS time especially when no governmental authority has examined the breached DNC server? Confirmation bias is REAL and very expensive and afflicts intelligence agencies too!

[Winstonm]

RedSpawn, on 2017-August-04, 03:33, said:

Yes and 13 Western intelligence sources confirmed Iraq (Saddam Hussein) had weapons of mass destruction and yet all 13 of them were wrong on the matter which lead to an extended war campaign costing approx. US $1 trillion and loss of lives--all built on faulty intelligence.

Read George Bush's speech giving the ultimatum to Iraq before we went to war. Our confidence and resolve in this matter was compelling, but we were wrong on so many levels. Our mindset changed since 09/11 and our need to respond militarily and get revenge for that day of infamy took precedence over our need to get our facts right.

http://www.americanr...shiraq31703.htm

How do we know that the same intelligence sources have gotten their facts right THIS time especially when no governmental authority has examined the breached DNC server? Confirmation bias is REAL and very expensive and afflicts intelligence agencies too!

Not quite accurate. The folly of Iraq was that the intelligence agencies allowed the WH to influence the results to match their wishes.

[billw55]

Winstonm, on 2017-August-04, 10:25, said:

Not quite accurate. The folly of Iraq was that the intelligence agencies allowed the WH to influence the results to match their wishes.

I'm still puzzled about the Iraq and WMD thing. There are multiple documented cases in the 1980s of Hussein using chemical weapons, including Halabja. So it is beyond question that Iraq had them as late as 1988. Then we invaded in 2003 and ... didn't find them. So what really happened? Where did they go? Did Iraq simply run out, or sell them, or hide them? I wonder. OK, some were removed after the first gulf war. But all of them? Perhaps some ended up in Syria?

In any case, let's not pretend that the Hussein regime was innocent in regards to WMD. And not just threats, but actual use, on civilians.

[mike777]

billw55, on 2017-August-04, 12:14, said:

I'm still puzzled about the Iraq and WMD thing. There are multiple documented cases in the 1980s of Hussein using chemical weapons, including Halabja. So it is beyond question that Iraq had them as late as 1988. Then we invaded in 2003 and ... didn't find them. So what really happened? Where did they go? Did Iraq simply run out, or sell them, or hide them? I wonder. OK, some were removed after the first gulf war. But all of them?

In any case, let's not pretend that the Hussein regime was innocent in regards to WMD. And not just threats, but actual use, on civilians.

I don't think it matters to those opposed to the war whether weapons were there or not. That is not the issue for those that oppose and hate Bush. In any event here is at least a partial answer to your questions.


"In 2015 it was learned that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction had not been fully accounted for by UN inspections.[13] Ten years after its inception, Operation Avarice was declassified and it was learned that there were stockpiles of warheads and rockets containing degraded chemical agents similar to those used in the Iran-Iraq War. From 2005 through 2006 military intelligence discovered that the weapons—many in poor condition, some empty or containing nonlethal liquid, but others containing sarin with unexpectedly high purity—were in the possession of one Iraqi individual who remained anonymous. Operation Avarice, headed by army intelligence and the CIA, involved the discreet purchase of the weapons from the unidentified individual to keep them off the black market.[13]"
https://en.wikipedia...ass_destruction

[Winstonm]

billw55, on 2017-August-04, 12:14, said:

I'm still puzzled about the Iraq and WMD thing. There are multiple documented cases in the 1980s of Hussein using chemical weapons, including Halabja. So it is beyond question that Iraq had them as late as 1988. Then we invaded in 2003 and ... didn't find them. So what really happened? Where did they go? Did Iraq simply run out, or sell them, or hide them? I wonder. OK, some were removed after the first gulf war. But all of them? Perhaps some ended up in Syria?

In any case, let's not pretend that the Hussein regime was innocent in regards to WMD. And not just threats, but actual use, on civilians.

No one is claiming that. Rationalizing the removal of Hussein does not help solve the basic problem of the politicization of the intelligence communities during that time period.

Quote

After all, the CIA didn’t come to those faulty conclusions on its own, but rather were pushed there by the Bush administration, particularly Vice President Dick Cheney, who aggressively cherry-picked evidence to back his prior convictions. As the National Security Archive notes, “Vice President Richard Cheney questioned his CIA briefers aggressively, pressing them to the wall when he saw intelligence from other agencies that portrayed a more somber picture than that in CIA’s reporting.” Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was active in pushing the intelligence community to come up with findings to justify the push for war, creating the Office of Special Plans to challenge CIA skeptics and force them to toe the Bush administration line on Iraq.

[RedSpawn]

Winstonm, on 2017-August-04, 10:25, said:

Not quite accurate. The folly of Iraq was that the intelligence agencies allowed the WH to influence the results to match their wishes.

Umm, Winston, please provide a source for this assertion.

This is too big to let it stand on the faith of your own word.

The CIA doesn't have a parent agency in the federal government hierarchy so it doesn't have to surrender to the President's whims though it must work with the President as a team on matters of national security and defense.

https://en.wikipedia...lligence_Agency
https://en.wikipedia...ates_government

[RedSpawn]

Winstonm, on 2017-August-04, 13:32, said:

No one is claiming that. Rationalizing the removal of Hussein does not help solve the basic problem of the politicization of the intelligence communities during that time period.

And the heavy price America paid in human lives and fiat currency for the politicization of the intelligence communities during that time period.

[Winstonm]

RedSpawn, on 2017-August-04, 15:27, said:

Umm, Winston, please provide a source for this assertion.

This is too big to let it stand on the faith of your own word.

The CIA doesn't have a parent agency in the federal government hierarchy so it doesn't have to surrender to the President's whims though it must work with the President as a team on matters of national security and defense.

https://en.wikipedia...lligence_Agency
https://en.wikipedia...ates_government

http://www.pbs.org/w...igence-failure/
http://www.cnn.com/2...04/23/cia.iraq/
http://www.motherjon...q-war-timeline/
https://news.vice.co...e-iraq-invasion

[mike777]

I certainly think it is fair to say that Presidents to one degree or another politicize the intelligent agencies. That all presidents do.

It seems the issue is, the argument that Winston and others make is that Republicans do to such a great degree that it makes the intelligent agencies unreliable or worse. Which of course lays the foundational question of how reliable are they?


At the very least we see articles from intelligent officers claiming that Trump is the worst of all, even worse than GeorgeW.

[Winstonm]

mike777, on 2017-August-04, 20:27, said:

I certainly think it is fair to say that Presidents to one degree or another politicize the intelligent agencies. That all presidents do.

It seems the issue is, the argument that Winston and others make is that Republicans do to such a great degree that it makes the intelligent agencies unreliable or worse. Which of course lays the foundational question of how reliable are they?


At the very least we see articles from intelligent officers claiming that Trump is the worst of all, even worse than GeorgeW.

Mike, my argument is specific to Dick Chaney concerning Iraq, not the Republican party or Republicans.

[mike777]

Winstonm, on 2017-August-04, 21:37, said:

Mike, my argument is specific to Dick Chaney concerning Iraq, not the Republican party or Republicans.

ok so Dick made the entire intelligence agency unreliable....terrible...that is your point.my point is at the time was that that may be true......let us see the evidence....not really my point...my point remains Bob Novak
--------------------

As for today....at the very least glad ,very glad to hear that Trump challenges view point of Kabul...of our generals....and yes he may be wrong, very wrong....but I hate the ridicule I hear on nbc and cnn on this one point.

[RedSpawn]

Winstonm, on 2017-August-04, 18:21, said:

http://www.pbs.org/w...igence-failure/
http://www.cnn.com/2...04/23/cia.iraq/
http://www.motherjon...q-war-timeline/
https://news.vice.co...e-iraq-invasion

I have reviewed the 1st PBS article and it says the CIA approved Bush's speech giving the ultimatum to Saddam Hussein in 2003. It also says the CIA was one of the several advisers to the President on the Iraq WMD matter and war military strategy, but it doesn't suggest or intimate the tailoring of intelligence estimates to the President's whims. I will review the remaining links in a few moments.

Don't overlook the possibility of monetary hegemony and the American petrodollar imperialism as an underlying reason for the march towards the Iraq War. MrAce has a separate forum topic dedicated to this and it is quite provocative. See link below:

http://www.monetary....for-war/2010/12

http://www.slate.com...is_of_evil.html