The Intelligence Community - Champion of Democracy

[Joe]

You seem to have missed the point.

It's funny to watch him demonstrate his profound ignorance, though I guess we're all used to it by now. Throwing dirt at the CIA clandestine folks in no way invalidates the conclusions of the analytical folks, much less those of the FBI, NSA, or allied intelligence agencies. That the Director of National Intelligence lied to Congress about a covert NSA program of questionable Constitutionality doesn't invalidate the agency's conclusions either.

I'm not looking for something to "not invalidate" conclusion. I'm suggesting that their record of being incorrect and their history of lying, and engaging in illegal activities, which is known and accepted for the past 75 years, since it was the OSS, and the fact that they will publish reports like the one I cited above regarding WMD in Iraq, means that their conclusions are not worthy of blind trust. All I'm saying is that they need to produce the evidence.

Of course, this whole thread is just meant to deflect attention from the fact that Trump's Helsinki summit caused so much concern. Unlike the North Korea summit, which was spun as a success, it's hard for his partisans to argue the US gained from Helsinki.

The mainstream media and anti-Trumpers didnt' spin North Korea as a success. They don't spin anything as a success. We have nearly 5% GDP growth, and even that's not considered a success. Even the low unemployment with high labor participation rates is not spun as a success. Democrats claim that it's because everyone has two jobs, and they work 80 hour work weeks.

Forty Two had to quote a Chinese commentator just for this. Putting Helsinki in a positive light would require using Russian media.

LOL. This has nothing to do with Helsinki being in a bad light or a good light. This whole Russia nonsense since 2016 is contrived. It's the new "Red Scare." And, people who are anti-Trump eat it up, hook line and sinker. If you had a Republican say Russia was a thread in 2015 or 2016, the Democrats would have laughed him out of the room, just like they laughed at Romney in 2012. The 1980s called, and they want their foreign policy back! Loooooooooooolllll! Oh, but the Russians are buying facebook ads and trying to "sow discord" in our elections! Oh, no! It's so terrible! These Russians they're behind it all!

The majority of Democrats thought the Russians tampered with vote tallies, even though there isn't a shred of evidence for that. https://www.weeklystandard.com/mark-hem ... o-evidence

I see you don't have a counter argument, save your usual whataboutism Forty Two. Sad, or as Boris Spassky once said. "it is a very pity."

[Forty Two]

Doesn't look like you know what "whataboutism" means....it's certainly nothing I wrote.

[Hermit]

Trigger Warning!!!1! :

i.e. the CIA guy says his superior is beholden to the policy preferences of the CIA guy. That was what disturbed me about Brennan. Traitor? Treasonous?

Brennan was not "the CIA guy" when he made the remarks about treason, and there is no suggestion whatsoever that he said or acted as though "his superior is beholden to the policy preferences of the CIA guy". You're just making stuff up now.

He was the head of the CIA until January 2017. My point was not that he has actual power over the President. My point was that his declaration that the President committed "treason" is ridiculous, because it's not the CIA or the intelligence services that set policy, it's the President and the Congress. Where he might have the opinion that Russia is an enemy or a danger to the US at level that is critical or extreme - it's not Treason for the President to disagree with him, and to seek friendship and even an alliance with Russia. I wasn't saying that the Prez is beholden to him or subject to him - I was saying that Brennan's statements - and those agreeing with him - that the President committed treason are political statements and ridiculous ones at that.

What is more, the dog is indeed wagging the tail, sometimes to the detriment of US policy. I provided a link to an article reporting one case of that in detail, where senior government officials filtered and stovepiped intelligence information to such an extent that the POTUS finished up making a disastrous policy decision. It was not the CIA that misinformed Bush. That was done by his Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld, his Under-Secretary of State for Arms Control John Bolton Deputy, his Secretary of Defence Paul Wolfowitz and his Under-Secretary for Policy Douglas Feith.

Certainly all those advisers to the President can be criticized as you have. As Trump said, “They lied,” he said. “They said there were weapons of mass destruction, there were none. And they knew there were none."

However, that instance does not change the fact that the CIA is regularly wrong, and regularly lies. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Powell all ultimately lied. They asked us to trust us, and they didn't let us see the documentation they said supported the war decision -- why? -- the rhetoric of sources and methods and national security - I could tell you, but then I'd have to kill you. Bullshit. We should never fall for it again.

I supported them based on trust that if they were making such bald-faced declarations at the time, they must have some really good proof. They wouldn't just make shit up. Well, they made shit up. Colin Powell went before the UN and lied. I was on the phone with a friend of mine while watching that speech. I said out loud at the time - o.k. - but they better have what they say they have - because what they're showing us are aerial photos of what looks like a Walmart taking deliveries from semi trucks. Never again will I believe what I'm told the intelligence community has concluded, or the government officials. I want proof. If it'll put sources at risk, then don't go to war until you pull the sources out.

We were told to take it on faith, and the CIA was willing to word its reports in a way to justify war because the military industrial complex and the "intelligence community" wanted Iraq for a long time.

That is pretty much the opposite of what happened. Government officials cherry-picked reports from a number of organisations, rejected the ones that suited their agenda, then pretended that what they concocted were the CIA's conclusions when they presented their confection to Bush . You're making things up again. Read the article.

You're right about the Bush Administration themselves exaggerating and lying about the intelligence on Iraq. But that doesn't change the fact that the CIA and the intelligence community regularly lies and regularly gets things wrong.

And the CIA did make reports that Iraq had a WMD program -- https://www.cia.gov/library/reports/gen ... emetns%201

Iraq has continued its weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programs in defiance of UN resolutions and restrictions. Baghdad has chemical and biological weapons as well as missiles with ranges in excess of UN restrictions; if left unchecked, it probably will have a nuclear weapon during this decade.

Baghdad hides large portions of Iraq's WMD efforts. Revelations after the Gulf war starkly demonstrate the extensive efforts undertaken by Iraq to deny information.

Since inspections ended in 1998, Iraq has maintained its chemical weapons effort, energized its missile program, and invested more heavily in biological weapons; most analysts assess Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program.

Iraq's growing ability to sell oil illicitly increases Baghdad's capabilities to finance WMD programs; annual earnings in cash and goods have more than quadrupled.

Iraq largely has rebuilt missile and biological weapons facilities damaged during Operation Desert Fox and has expanded its chemical and biological infrastructure under the cover of civilian production.
Baghdad has exceeded UN range limits of 150 km with its ballistic missiles and is working with unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), which allow for a more lethal means to deliver biological and, less likely, chemical warfare agents.
Although Saddam probably does not yet have nuclear weapons or sufficient material to make any, he remains intent on acquiring them.

October, 2002 report from the CIA - https://www.cia.gov/library/reports/gen ... t_2002.pdf

Dead. Fucking. Wrong. Wouldn't it be nice if we were privy to the background data (if any) used to produce this report - if we had the other intelligence, that was later released and "declassified" long after the war ended. But... national security and sources and methods rubric prevented us from knowing at the time.

I read this far: "He was the head of the CIA until January 2017. My point was not that he has actual power over the President. My point was that his declaration that the President committed "treason" is ridiculous, because it's not the CIA or the intelligence services that set policy, it's the President and the Congress." You obviously read without chucking your brain into gear first. The CIA does not set policy. It never has, though it does influence policy. That is its remit. And you can opine about Trump's alleged treasonous acts as much as you like. Brennan never said anything of the sort while he was Director of the CIA.

So again, your first sentence indicated another avalanche of sophistry was commencing. I'm taking a break from reading bullshit. Cya later.

[pErvinalia]

Doesn't look like you know what "whataboutism" means....it's certainly nothing I wrote.

Joe clearly knows what "whataboutism" means, as he correctly identified your referring to Romney and "the 1980's called and want their foreign policy back". The real question is - do you really have zero self-awareness, or is this just more of your dishonesty?

[Seabass]

The mainstream media and anti-Trumpers didnt' spin North Korea as a success.

When DPRK de-nukes, I'll consider it a success.

We have nearly 5% GDP growth, and even that's not considered a success.

Q2 GDP growth was 4.1. That was topped four times under Obama. You lose.

Even the low unemployment with high labor participation rates is not spun as a success.

Thanks, Obama.


There are no upsides to Trump. Unless you're a nihilistic, racist, misogynistic psychopath.

[Joe]

Doesn't look like you know what "whataboutism" means....it's certainly nothing I wrote.

Joe clearly knows what "whataboutism" means, as he correctly identified your referring to Romney and "the 1980's called and want their foreign policy back". The real question is - do you really have zero self-awareness, or is this just more of your dishonesty?

Yeah, and this "Russia nonsense" has produced a surprising number of indictments for being "contrived," hasn't it?

[pErvinalia]

Those are all contrived as well. It's one big conspiracy all the way down. The deep state has it's tentacles in everything I tell you!!

[Joe]

Those are all contrived as well. It's one big conspiracy all the way down. The deep state has it's tentacles in everything I tell you!!

Well, far be it from me to ascribe to malice that which can be explained by stupidity.

[pErvinalia]

My main reason now for hoping that they nail heaps of people over this Russian thing is to see 42 in years to come state with a straight face that he never said it was an unwarranted witch hunt. Like the Obama thing in my signature. He still claims we didn't criticise Obama.

[Joe]

Well, I just want to see the investigation get to the bottom of what the Russians were up to and thwart their efforts. Forty Two's weird riff about Facebook ads and a new Red Scare not withstanding, there are too many signs that the Russians had opportunity to suborn members of the Trump campaign. The fact these people lied repeatedly about Russian contacts, and didn't report them to the FBI, adds an urgency to the effort.

Trump's own behavior has caused great concern that he is being controlled in some way, although being Trump, it's entirely possible it's just the result of his "eccentricities." People who are duty bound to counter foreign espionage can't make that assumption though. They may not be the "champion of democracy," but it's their job.

For Americans who put the country ahead of party interests, this is pretty obvious. It's too bad so many Republicans partisans can't see it. If Forty Two is ashamed of his arguments in years to come, that's probably a good sign.

[Sean Hayden]

I can't accept that he's just a partisan hack. --sorry, I know I keep beating that drum, but it doesn't make sense to me.

[Joe]

Who? Trump or Forty Two?

[Sean Hayden]

42, Trump's just empty

[Joe]

Oh yeah, Trump's a rich know nothing.

Forty Two's okay, but he sure is toeing the party line on the Russia investigation, and that's too bad.

[pErvinalia]

You can't accept that 42 is a partisan hack, Sean? 42 is a hyper partisan hack! Everything is partisan with him.