The New York Times reports that members of Congress want intelligence officials to explain the claims that Russia paid a bounty to Afghan militants to kill soldiers who are American or other Coalition forces.
Trump denies that he was briefed. Is it credible that such an important development would not be transmitted to the president?
Democrats and Republicans in Congress demanded on Monday that American intelligence agencies promptly share with lawmakers what they know about a suspected Russian plot to pay bounties to the Taliban to kill American troops in Afghanistan, and threatened to retaliate against the Kremlin.
Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, the Democratic leaders of the House and Senate, each requested that all lawmakers be briefed on the matter and for C.I.A. and other intelligence officials to explain how President Trump was informed of intelligence collected about the plot. Mr. Trump has said he was not made aware of an intelligence assessment about the plot; officials have said that it was briefed to the highest levels of the White House and appeared in the president’s daily intelligence brief.
“Congress and the country need answers now,” Ms. Pelosi, Democrat of California, wrote in a letter to John Ratcliffe, the director of national intelligence, and Gina Haspel, the C.I.A. director. “Congress needs to know what the intelligence community knows about this significant threat to American troops and our allies and what options are available to hold Russia accountable.”
In the Republican-controlled Senate, James Inhofe of Oklahoma, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, said he had asked for information as well and expected to know more on the matter “in the coming days.”
“We’ve known for a long time that Putin is a thug and a murderer, and if these allegations are true, I will work with President Trump on a strong response,” he said in a statement. “My No. 1 priority is the safety of our troops. Right now, though, we need answers.”
The C.I.A. declined to comment on Ms. Pelosi’s request.
Members of Congress were caught off guard on Friday when The New York Times first reported that American intelligence had found that a Russian military intelligence unit had secretly offered bounties to Taliban-linked militants in exchange for killing American troops and their allies in Afghanistan. National Security Council officials met in March to discuss the intelligence, but the White House has taken no known action in response.
The Times further reported on Sunday that American intelligences officers and Special Operations forces in the country had informed their superiors of the suspected Russian plot as early as January, after a large amount of American cash was seized in a raid on a Taliban outpost.
American officials believed that the death of at least one U.S. service member was tied to the bounties, and they are reviewing other combat casualties in search of other potential victims, officials familiar with the matter have said.
The White House has not challenged that the intelligence assessment exists, or that the National Security Council held an interagency meeting about it in late March.
But Mr. Trump and his press secretary, Kaleigh McEnany, have both claimed that he was not briefed on the intelligence report. Mr. Trump said in a tweet late Sunday that “Intel just reported to me that they did not find this info credible, and therefore did not report it to me” or Vice President Mike Pence.
Lawmakers were left uncertain what to believe, and even members of Mr. Trump’s party sounded uneasy on Monday when asked about the president’s statements.
Representative Mac Thornberry of Texas, the top Republican on the House Armed Services Committee, said Mr. Trump’s tweet suggesting he had not been made aware of the reports was “a very concerning statement.”
“Anything with any hint of credibility that would endanger our service members, much less put a bounty on their lives, to me should have been briefed immediately to the commander in chief and a plan to deal with that situation,” he said.
This latest incident just highlights all that is wrong with having a pathological liar in the Oval Office. I no longer believe a word he says about anything. Such a tragedy for the country. I am in total agreement with Chris Hayes: trump should resign immediately, along with Pence and Barr.
As the saying goes, you can tell when Trump is lying. His mouth is moving.
So apparently no one in Congress was briefed, but yet it’s completely incomprehensible that the President wasn’t briefed, even though Ratcliffe himself said the president was not briefed?
In any case, a couple thoughts. Why does the Taliban need to be bribed to kill American soldiers? Haven’t they been at war for 19 years now? And, 20 soldiers were killed in Afghanistan in 2019, and 6 more this year. If there was a bounty, wouldn’t the number of dead be a lot higher? And, finally, am I the only one who finds it highly coincidental that this “intelligence” has been released just as there was a break-through in peace talks among Russia, Afghanistan and the U.S.? Why do we reflexively believe “intelligence” agencies that have lied to us so many times at such disastrous costs?
Dienne,
You have made clear that you despise Biden. Now you defend Trump. Puzzling. Let’s hope there are hearings and Congress finds out what happened.
Where did I defend Trump? I say this over and over and over and I know you’re smart enough to understand. It is completely possible to question the intelligence agencies – which have a documented history of lying – without supporting Trump. When did you get to be so Manichean? Does your fear and hatred of Trump leave no room for nuance?
The story is about Trump failing to protect US and Coalition troops.
The story is about Trump deferring to Putin and valuing Putin’s “friendship” more than the lives of our troops.
The NY Times and Washington Post said Trump and the National Security Council were informed in mid-March, debated different responses, and ultimately decided to do nothing.
So when you question the story and doubt the reliability of the nation’s two most reputable newspapers, you are defending Trump in his claim that he never had an intelligence briefing and was uninformed (he did not challenge the story itself, which you do.)
One of the Twitter comments was that Trump values dead Confederate statues more than American troops.
Don’t you think Congress should investigate?
Why wouldn’t the Taliban accept money to kill Americans? I think the bribery probably says more about Russia than it does about the Taliban, but I don’t pretend to understand the machinations of all the players in this game. I do have more faith in the credibility of our intelligence sources rather than the word of of the Taliban or Russia. Of course, the NYT is involved in some deep state plot to undermine the peace negotiations in Afghanistan. Everyone knows that they can never be trusted to report news with any degree of fidelity.
The Captain Queeg question:
How in the world was the President of the U.S. NOT briefed (as he claims)? Do the military leaders and CIA feel compelled to keep information from him for fear of his actions?
The Jim Jones question:
Is this President briefed on bounties – not wargames – bounties on American soldiers and he allows more to be led to their death.
The George Floyd question:
How do 50 Senators – like the three officers in Floyd’s case – watch an American die and do absolutely nothing.
All good questions. Unfortunately, the easy answers don’t comfort.
“Ratcliffe himself said the President was not briefed”-
Ratcliffe is from the Trump- loyalists, evangelical camp- just kidding- he and Barr like so many others in the inner circle share the religion, whose name is verboten at this blog.
Sorry, one more thought. Why is this non-story getting so much more traction than the Afghanistan papers released last December that showed that we were repeatedly lied to about progress in Afghanistan, even when U.S. leaders knew we were not making any progress?
It’s not getting “so much traction”. It’s being reported on because it is very odd for a US president to be siding with Russia over the US.
I think what is amazing is that there are actually some Trump voters who are more concerned about Biden not being absolutely perfect than they are about having a racist president who has caused needless deaths and in the middle of a pandemic and a crisis in criminal justice is still being supported by people who point their guns at peaceful protesters and who refused to wear masks because Trump says the pandemic crisis is just another example of “fake news”.
Anyone who thinks the problem is Biden and not Trump has a lot in common with Trump’s most rabid supporters.
This will turn out to be one of the most heinous scandals in American history. Say what you will about Nixon, Harding or Buchanan, not one would have ever conceived of treason. The only candidate in our history that comes to mind is Burr.
Nixon conceived of it. It was called the Chennault Affair. https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/12/30/anna-chennault-obituary-vietnam-back-channel-nixon-1968-223299
Noted and accepted. Thanks for the reminder. You also jogged my memory of Gary Sick and 1980 election. Thanks.
And the arms for hostages deal that all the right-wing pundits claimed Reagan knew nothing about but that we all know, now, he did know about. It was obvious then as it is now that Reagan was lying. The arms for hostages deal was clearly treasonous. Not, as egregious as covering up bounties on our troops, ofc, but treasonous nonetheless.
Also noted and accepted. I also agree with your final sentence.
I disagree. Negotiating with the Iranians before the presidential election, Reagan’s men apparently gave up a lot of stuff to the very people who were holding the hostages, even though they pretended to hate them and sewed hatred of them I the electorate to get Reagan elected. Then they conducted secret diplomatic machinations with a hostile foreign power. They arguably laid the foundation for the instability in the Middle east today.
Not that Trump’s folks have done substantially better. Worse, arguably.
Not sure what you are saying, Roy. That this wasn’t treasonous? Making a deal with these people to hold the hostages until Reagan defeated Carter, a defeat based in large part on Carter’s inability to free the hostages, was not treasonous? And do you really think that candidate Reagan didn’t either a) know about this from the beginning or b) know about it early on and keep it quiet? You are right that the conspiracy went far beyond Reagan. Interestingly, former president Nixon, then a private citizen, just happened to have made a trip before the election to Iran and to have met with the leaders there. It strains credulity to imagine that he was just sitting around San Clemente one day and said to himself, “You know, I need a vacation. A nice little trip to Tehran, where Americans are being held hostage, would be just perfect.” LMAO.
Bob: I was just saying that it was hard to say that something was more treasonous than the Iran-contra affair. When the GOP passed o the idea of impeachment that time, I knew we were in for trouble. trump is the trouble we were in for.
Ah, I see, RT. Yeah, this was pretty egregious!!!
Good points all, RT. The ranking of unquantifiable subjects is an American disease. When it comes to treason, there are no shades of gray. They’re all horrible and deserve the constitutional remedy.
Agreed, Greg. One of the things that has worried me a lot about all this is why our intelligence services have yet to out Trump. What the hell are they waiting for? Is there a longer game here that I don’t understand? How much has this guy already compromised us? In my worst moments, I’ve thought, my Lord, things are so bad and nothing has been done. It’s so bad that one hesitates even to use the term “intelligence” to describe them anymore. But these services are full of a lot of brilliant people–career people of breathtaking ability. So why is Trump still in office? This is a great mystery. It’s so freaking clear what he is.
As much as I dislike Trump, I would have problems with our intelligence agencies unilaterally “outing” him or any president, especially with Greg’s analysis of intelligence gathering in epidemiological terms. That not withstanding, they have to exhaust all normal channels before resorting to public leaks.
You would have a problem with our intelligence agencies outing a president who was secretly working as an agent for a foreign power?
My objection is to unilateral action by the intelligence community to announce it’s suppositions to the public. I do not care to have leaks to the press to be the primary way of addressing possible malfeasance by anyone. We have a government and procedures for getting the information to people who can make the decisions on the appropriate actions. I do not care to give that power to the intelligence community.
No. Of course I concur with that. However, if the intelligence services have clear evidence of treason, they have a responsibility to act.
Bob, I think the answer to your question is “duty,” a concept that is completely alien to the Idiot. Regardless of the sinister motives some want to tar intelligence officers with, duty and the protocols and procedures that go with it are sacred to all but a few intelligence officers. They have a duty to the nation and its hierarchy, a duty to procedure, and a duty to the operatives they work with throughout the world, whose lives (and the lives of their families) literally hang in the balance if they are exposed. It’s easy for us to say, why don’t they just speak up? But it’s very different when you’re one of them. Just look at how Alexander Vindman, Fiona Hill, and all the others who stuck out their necks were treated and, worst of all, nothing changed, it only got worse. I don’t have any answers, but the complexity of this is far deeper than any of us can imagine. But it comes down to duty, in my opinion.
I never said and never would say, “Why don’t they just speak up?” I never suggested that they engage in leaking information. Why are people attributing such extremely objectionable, notions to me? What shocks me is that our intelligence services, having determined that Trump is a traitor, have not arrested him like any other person guilty of treason.
OK. They can’t just arrest him. But they have a duty to turn over evidence of treason to the constitutionally instituted authorities for removal of the President for Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors–Congress.
Lets just imagine that I’m right and that Trump is, in fact, a deeply compromised Russian asset. Wouldn’t it be the worst intelligence failure in our history for these services not to have gathered and presented to Congress sufficient evidence that this is so? That’s ALL I was saying. Aie yie yie. Please don’t attribute to me egregious suggestions that I did not make.
https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-trump-property/
https://newrepublic.com/article/143586/trumps-russian-laundromat-trump-tower-luxury-high-rises-dirty-money-international-crime-syndicate
https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/democracy/reports/2018/12/17/464235/following-the-money/
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/11/19/trump-first-moscow-trip-215842
All this, and much, much more, is just what is publicly available. Imagine how much more the U.S. intelligence services must know about Trump and Russia.
Perhaps I misunderstood. I paraphrased “What the hell are they waiting for?” and “You would have a problem with our intelligence agencies outing a president who was secretly working as an agent for a foreign power?” as “Why don’t they speak up?” I tried to explain why I think their general, widespread conception of duty and protocol acted as a brake to anything beyond reporting to their superiors. And Vindman, et al, provide tangible examples. Again, what if one speaks up (my words), nothing changes, and unaccountable retribution is the result? How many people are standing up for Vindman now? How many people even know where the hell he is? I honestly don’t understand your logic here. Nothing disparaging intended. I just don’t get it. Under what authority could an intelligence officer “arrest[ ] him like any other person guilty of treason”?
That was an idiotic comment on my part, Greg. I was incensed. There is no such authority. I did immediately correct myself, above. I am not, DEFINITELY NOT, saying that members of the intelligence services should decide on their own to speak out. It is their duty to keep their freaking mouths shut. What I mean is that surely the evidence file on Trump must be very, very thick indeed given the breathtaking amount of stuff that is publicly known about Trump and Russia. Again, what if I (and many, many others) am right and Trump is, in fact, a Russian asset? What if he has had that loyalty all along? Wouldn’t failure to bring him to account, by presenting sufficient evidence to Congress, be the greatest failure in the history of the U.S. intelligence services?
Now I’m more confused. What’s the difference between my paraphrasing of your remarks as, “Why don’t they just speak up?” and your statement of “…not to have gathered and presented to Congress sufficient evidence that this is so?” And note my example of the many brave and honest people who testified before Congress on the Idiot and Russia. I don’t see much of a distinction or difference. Perhaps it’s my obtuseness. I never was the sharpest knife in the drawer.
Greg, you are a pretty sharp knife. It’s one thing to testify before Congress. It’s another thing to gather a case and present it to the House Intelligence Committee and to House leadership so that they can proceed with the Constitutional remedy.
Suppose that a member of Congress were discovered by F.B.I. agents leaving pictures of and specs of a new highly classified piece of U.S. defense for pickup by a Russian agent. That person would, of course, be immediately arrested. It is bizarre but true that a President could not be so arrested for doing the same thing. I’m not sure that should be the case. But I do apologize for that statement about arresting the guy. Clearly, my fingers were moving but my brain wasn’t.
I have a suspicion that most of the info available to the intelligence community did make it to the proper authorities. The Democrats tried to craft a case with sufficient backing in verified fact to impeach the President, which they did. However, for whatever reasons, the Republicans in the Senate had no desire to remove him from office. I have no doubt that Trump’s corruption is being well documented, but I think the Democrats as well as any people who believe in the rule of law and the Constitution know that his downfall may depend on the election, down ballot as well. The best most of us can do is to vote “loudly.”
Well, I’ve wasted another fine day cursing Trump. Of late, there have been moments when I almost felt sorry for him, but then, nah. I wish only that he could spend a day inhabiting the body of one of those kids he has in cages. And I wish that I lived in a good enough world that he and Stephen “Goebbels” Miller would find themselves standing in the dock at the International Court of Criminal Justice.
I guess we’re on the same page. On another note, but somewhat related, I also have great frustration with the parents, teachers, and administrators in my district who mostly agree that standardized testing is bad–among other things that are ridiculous and unaddressed–and no one speaks up about it besides me. And the status quo moves on. Oh well, if there ever is a constitutional remedy applied to the Idiot, you and I can argue about who gets to pull the switch!
LMAO.
VoteVets Video Link On This Treason
Powerful
Powerful. I weep for our country.
There goes your “Front Porch” campaign Diane. 20 yrs in Afghanistan with zero progress. Why do you think this story was leaked now? Could it be that people like John Bolton want to stay at war? “The United States has reduced the number of troops it has in Afghanistan to 8,600 in accordance with a preliminary peace deal with the Taliban…” I think it would be much better for democrats to advocate for bringing the troops home, rather than getting into a proxy war with Russian. The majority of Americans want these wars to end.
Biden can advocate whatever he wants without campaigning across the country. He can speak to the nation on television. He can give “fireside chats,” like FDR. Old-style campaigning is out.
My concept of a “Front Porch” campaign is that you sit back and say as little as possible because you’re up by 14 points. I worry that this outrageous emotional charged story is going to force Biden into an intense debate on foreign policy in the middle east. We don’t need to go there!
Nope, the candidate sits on the front porch, gives interviews, in the media age gives speeches. Let Trump have mass rallies and spread COVID. Let Trump be Trump.
Let me say it again. This is brilliance, Diane. Exactly what our candidate should do.
“A front porch campaign is a low-key electoral campaign used in American politics in which the candidate remains close to or at home to make speeches to supporters who come to visit. ” I think democrats are best to keep it “low-key” like Warren Harding did with his “return to normalcy” front porch campaign after the Spanish Flu. I think this Russian bounty story distracts from Biden’s “return to normalcy” theme. Simmer down people!
The Russians, when they were the USSR, did their disastrous stint in Afghanistan in the late 1970s through part of the 1980s. At that time it was the US which armed the Muslim rebels who killed Russian soldiers and their allies in Afghanistan. Yes, get the troops out of that sad country after 20 years of bloodshed.
That’s the obvious solution, but there’s gonna be a whole lot of contractors who are out of business!
I heard that Trump does not read intelligence briefings. In fact, he reads very little except Twitter posts. He mostly watches TV. When he has to read from a teleprompter as he did with the C-17 briefings, it is painful to listen. I notice he loses expected intonation which often happens to reluctant readers. I do not know if other people have noticed this tendency too.
That’s why he is given oral summaries. There is no way he wasn’t informed.
Trump’s denial doesn’t just strain credulity. It breaks it into little shards.
cx:C-19
The only real mystery here is why this traitor is still in office. That Trump is owned by Russia is clear to anyone with a brain.
The trade worked out between Trump and Putin…..Putin will allow several million Russian men to vote in several key states in our November election….but…..he must agree to pay bounties only for the killing of black soldiers.
Suggestion for Family Guy Episode in which the dog, Brian, assumes the name Donald, then runs for and is elected President of the United States.
PRESIDENT: The Democrats, they have been after me over the Doggie Don hoax since before the election.
REPORTER: But Mr. President, during the campaign, didn’t you say, “Petsmart, if you’re listening, send me a pallet of nice chewy Milkbone biscuits?
PRESIDENT: I was obviously joking.
REPORTER: And didn’t you sniff all the butts at the G7 meeting in Biarritz? If you are, in fact, a dog, you clearly cannot continue to be President of the United States.
PRESIDENT: What can I say? I’m friendly. But, you see, I’m also very, very smart. My uncle was a supergenius at MIT. The things I could tell you about those people. Not like Obama, who was clueless.
REPORTER: And you bury what’s left over from your meals in holes you dig on the White House lawn?
PRESIDENT: Economy. The waste before I came into office! Best economy ever.
REPORTER: Uh, Mr. President, you walk around the White House on all fours. You howl out the windows. You scratch at the door to be let out to pee. You lift your leg to do so. You stick his tongue out and pant. You are covered with fur. You have a wet nose. Your ears hang to your shoulders. You have paws and a tail. All this seems distinctively doglike.
PRESIDENT: You people. All you do is pick and pick and pick. Trying to turn up something against me. Fake news. Once, just once, I would like to hear one of you people say, would you like me to scratch your tummy?
REPORTER: OK. Let’s get one thing settled. Did you chew up the sofas in the Lincoln bedroom?
PRESIDENT: Fake news.
REPORTER: But there was fur like yours all over the floor.
PRESIDENT: OK. Now you are going to resort to personal attacks. Yes, I’m a bit more hirsute that most. Satisfied? But who says this was mine? Ask Dienne77, she’ll tell you, or Kayleigh. Absolutely no evidence this was my fur. They made it all up.
REPORTER: But Mr. President, people don’t have fur. Never mind. OK. Would you be willing to submit a sample of your fur for DNA analysis?
PRESIDENT: Sorry, I’m under contract for grooming, uh, hair cutting. Toss the stick.
REPORTER: The stick?
PRESIDENT: That stick, over there. You throw it. I run and grab it and bring it back to you.
REPORTER: Uh, OK. Hey, this is fun.
PRESIDENT: You know, I’m looking for a new Press Secretary.
VLAD: I know, let’s give them the idiot, Trump. He will screw up EVERYTHING. Tear the country in two. Alienate allies. Make a shambles of every function of government. Rape the environment. Fill his administration with idiots like himself. A couple of years, the US will look like a Third World Nation.
AIDE: I don’t know. Who in their right mind would vote for this guy?
VLAD: That’s the beauty of it. We do this enormous social media campaign. We promise all our assets in the Republican Party that with him in office, they can get whatever they want. Pillage to their hearts’ content. And here’s the beauty of it: we have the goods on him. The tape. The money laundering. The secret loans. We’ve been developing him since 1987, for crying out loud. He will do whatever we want. Pull troops out of Syria and Germany. Make the lobbyist for Russian control of Ukraine his campaign chairman. Withhold military aid to Ukraine. Tell the world what a great job we’re doing in Crimea. Pull out of the INF and Open Skies Treaties at the very time when we have pulled ahead with our hypersonic nuclear missiles. Freaking invite us to interfere in U.S. elections. Get us back in the G7-G8. Reduce or stop funding NATO, maybe even withdraw from it. On and on and on and on.
AIDE: Well, if you pulled it off, this would have to be the most spectacular intelligence coup in history.
VLAD: I know, right?
I have a brief sketch, above, that is in moderation. But I’ve made a few improvements to it. here’s the revised version: https://bobshepherdonline.wordpress.com/2020/06/29/the-president-defends-himself-against-accusations-of-being-a-dog/
The President Defends Himself against Accusations of Being a Dog
**The Russia bounty scandal shows how close Trump is to destroying America altogether
Jun. 29, 2020 4:23 pm
By Thom Hartmann
It appears there is at least one branch of the federal government that Donald Trump has been unable to corrupt. So far.
He put loyal toadies who would lie and cheat for him over at the Department of Justice with William Barr, at EPA and Interior with a couple of fossil fuel lobbyists, at the FCC with a Verizon lawyer, at the Department of Education with a billionaire hack who hates public schools, and he even a former defense lobbyist in charge of the Pentagon.
But the intelligence community, or at least people in it, appear to have resisted.
Word that Donald Trump has known for months, and possibly for over a year, that Russia was paying the Taliban for killing American soldiers has rocked Americans.
But the bigger question, yet to be confronted in public, is whether Trump will use this as an opportunity to crush our intelligence services the way he has our agencies responsible for legal, labor, and environmental protections. Whether this could signal the final death of our form of government.
Trump has already begun the process of corrupting America’s intelligence agencies.
He moved a hardcore, rightwing Tea Party crackpot from Congress, John Ratcliffe, into the position of Director of National Security after Ratcliffe did such a spectacular job defending Trump’s attempted treason with Ukraine during the impeachment hearings.
Ratcliffe, predictably, is saying that Trump didn’t know about all this, although multiple sources are reporting that it was included in the Presidential Daily Briefing and that Trump was explicitly informed last year.
The intelligence community is both broad and deep, and it’s entirely possible that Trump hasn’t had enough time or doesn’t have enough toadies in that world to bring it to its knees.
This will get particularly explosive if the intelligence community decides to follow up by offering an answer to the question of why Donald Trump would be OK with Russia doing this, or at least why he would ignore it.
Watch this space.
-Thom
Indeed. We are at an inflection point. A crux. The clove of seasons. Watch this space indeed. All this is very, very frightening.
the clove of seasons in the lifecycle of an empire
“I have nothing to do with Russia.” –President-elect (oh woeful day!) Donald Trump, Vlad’s Asset Orange, aka Moscow’s Agent Governing America (MAGA), January 2, 2017
“Russians make up a pretty disproportionate cross-section of a lot of our [the Trump Organization’s] assets.” –Donald Trump, Jr., interview, 2008
‘Well, we don’t rely on American banks. We have all the funding we need out of Russia.” –Eric Trump to golfing reporter/author James Dodson, 2014
cx: January 3, 2017
Don’t forget that the Trump Tower sold many apartments to Russian oligarchs to laundercillegal assets. Same in Palm Beach. During the campaign he boasted “Why shouldn’t I like the Russians? They buy multimillion dollar properties from me.”
All this is very, very well documented, and it’s truly astonishing, the extent of it. U.S. real estate as a means for money laundering by Russian kleptocrats.
It strikes me that our times could be appropriately labeled “the Sgt. Schulz presidency.” Not only does the Idiot know nothing, neither do his cult and its apologists.
So American public is supposed to feel all is AOK cuz.. “Trump was not briefed”??
Alternatively– we’re supposed to believe POTUS was not briefed?
Dienne77, this needs elaboration: “Why do we reflexively believe “intelligence” agencies that have lied to us so many times at such disastrous costs?”
Beth, you are obviously a thoughtful and discerning person. Why do you even care?
Just for you, Greg: I’m Ginny. The username is like, B [family-name], 3 [had 3 kids] = 5 [in family].
You care, don’t you, Greg? Well, maybe not so much about this kerfuffle, but in general, you care. How much do I care about this issue? Hard to say. I see the Afghanistan war as a hot mess. Always think about how successive empires since forever have fallen/ failed on those cliffs. I think all I care about here is DJT’s ludicrous claim that he was “not informed,” & attempt [once again] to undermine public’s trust in intelligence service – just another deflection away from his refusal to take responsibility for anything at all. He is the antithesis of a leader.
We have never had a president who undermined not just the entire intelligence services but every federal agency —until he took personal control. I have no words. Not for him, not for the Republican senators who support him.
Ginny, I was unclear. Not writing about the subject, as you will note on the comments I have made and the urgency I felt as soon as I learned about this story. We are in complete agreement on it. My question was, more precisely, why do you care about the comments of our most shrill commentator?
Totally agree with Diane about this. Trump is an unprecedented (“unpresidented,” he once tweeted) disaster. A traitor and a complete incompetent who has left devastation in his blundering, clueless wake.
Bob Shepherd: Roberts, on the Supreme Court, ruled that Trump can fire the director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau without stated cause.
We certainly don’t want consumers to be protected. Got to get the right man/woman in that position. Dang, it still will continue to exist.
………………………………….
And Roberts joined his four fellow conservatives in a decision that will allow President Trump to fire the director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau without stated cause. Congress created the consumer-protection agency as part of the Dodd-Frank Act in 2010, stipulating that the president could remove its leader only in cases of “inefficiency, neglect of duty or malfeasance.”
Writing for the majority, Roberts argued that this provision “violates the Constitution’s separation of powers.” But the decision also ensured that the C.F.P.B., an object of ire among many pro-business conservatives, would continue to exist — answering a political question that has remained open for 10 years. “The agency may therefore continue to operate, but its director, in light of our decision, must be removable by the president at will,” Roberts wrote.
L’état, c’est moi!
Aie yie yie!!! I need to read this decision. I want to see his reasoning.
Nothing abut Russian support of the Taliban is surprising. We are returning to the Cold War, during which all manner of unconstitutional foreign policy was justified on the basis of anything being better than Russian Communism.
Roy,
I didn’t like the Cold War but it was better than a hot war. Soviet Communism was a nightmare for everyone who lived there. I visited while it existed, and it was a dystopian society. I also visited nations still under the heel of the Soviets—Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia—and I assure you that the people there hated Soviet domination. As you know, some places—like Romania and Albania—were completely closed societies. No more. East Germany has been completely transformed since Germany reunited. The USSR was no better than Nazi Germany. Read “The Black Book of Communism” by two French historians.
while I agree that the Cold War was preferable to a hot one, I question many of the strongmen we supported as alternatives to what we viewed as communists, therefore automatically pro-Russian.
I certainly did not mean to question Kennan’s idea of containment. Still, our meddling the Itallian election in 48 or so set a horrible precedent, and our support for dictators from Suharto to Mombuto Sese Seko made Africa what it is today.
Whatever you do, please do not think I prefer trump to Biden on the basis of this post. Nor do I suggest that Putin’s Russia is less potent than the Soviets. In ways, their techniques are harder to counter than the Soviets were. A friend who is high up n the military told us Russian techniques in the war with Ukraine were brilliant tactically and difficult to counter. By comparison, he described the Soviets as somewhat blundering.
One of my good friends is Romanian. She described how awful it was under the USSR. People were encouraged to spy on and report on their neighbors. She met her husband, a English professor on a Fulbright Scholarship, in Romania. They had to sneak around and not be seen in public.
I hope, if you have not already, will consider reading Herta Müller, whose novels about Romania under Ceaucescu are maddeningly difficult to read, but worth the effort.
Greg, I visited Romania six months after Caucescu and his wife were assassinated. The buildings were pockmarked with bullet holes. Rumors abounded. Department stores were empty of goods. Escalators didn’t work. Electricity was sporadic. No one trusted anyone else. Post-Soviet aura of fear, suspicion.
I have a relative who grew up in a communist country. He is rabidly anti-communist. Unfortunately, he he is susceptible to the horrified cries that some public good is socialist and therefore suspect.
That is why the Cuban exiles were rabidly anti-Communist and pro-Republican. Hopefully that will change with the second generation. That, is the tilt towards Republicans.
Should these interest you:
https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/1115469306
https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/1115468782
The most important lesson of the Cold War is that patient, committed containment works. It is a lesson that was quickly discarded and forgotten. Two of the most forgotten parts of the policy–because militarism makes a better story–are the policy of engagement, Ostpolitik, through which people within the containment zones could actually see and judge their perceived enemies as human beings, and, to a lesser but still important extent, the Helsinki Accords, which added a much needed moral component to accountability.
WHITE HOUSE KNEW ABOUT RUSSIAN BOUNTY A YEAR AGO: REPORT Top officials in the White House were aware in early 2019 of classified intelligence indicating Russia was secretly offering bounties to the Taliban for the deaths of Americans, a full year earlier than has been previously reported, according to U.S. officials with direct knowledge of the intelligence. The assessment was included in at least one of President Donald Trump’s written daily intelligence briefings at the time, according to the officials. Then-national security adviser John Bolton also told colleagues he briefed Trump on the intelligence assessment in March 2019. [AP]
I still don’t know how much we can trust what is so called “intelligence,” regarding its historical role in disseminating confusing(and propagandistic) information — long before Trump presidency. As far as the issue is concerned, I am more interested in how the top national intelligence authority got the information and sent it down to their favorite media outlets(usually, NYT/WaPo/CNN/MSNBC recently)–regardless of their angst toward Trump. Personally, whether we have national intelligence or not doesn’t change the fact that Trump is a disgraceful con man. He’s the least trustworthy president for the vast majority of Americans(except for his base).
Maybe, this one can be different–not a game changer, though — from the same old phony Russian conspiracy coming from FBI/CIA/NSA regime There is a legitimate reason to believe that there was indeed a plot and WH handled it horribly.
But, I have to say that the way national intelligences intervene into public affair is really troubling because it clearly brings more distraction and chaos–which Don the Con loves to capitalize on. That’s how he frames himself as a victim of vicious attack by media bullies—the reason why he has been successful so far in bringing some people over his side when he was attacked.It’s rather counterproductive to genuine critique of Trump and his Clown House.
If the “bounty” report turns members of the U.S. military into Democratic voters in Nov.- it has purpose.
Diane featured a post about the pandemic by John Thompson a while ago that featured link to an article with one of the best explanatory quotes I have ever read that relates to this:
“Epidemiology is a science of possibilities and persuasion, not of certainties or hard proof. ‘Being approximately right most of the time is better than being precisely right occasionally,’ the Scottish epidemiologist John Cowden wrote, in 2010. ‘You can only be sure when to act in retrospect.’ Epidemiologists must persuade people to upend their lives—to forgo travel and socializing, to submit themselves to blood draws and immunization shots—even when there’s scant evidence that they’re directly at risk.”
The same applies to intelligence. I’ve had some interactions with intelligence professionals in my lifetime. While I have not always agreed with their conclusions or politics, the one thing I am sure of is that they approached their work like good epidemiologists, gathering information for policy makers to make decisions. They weren’t always right, but more often than not, there were great elements of truth. Both fields are about paying attention and doing the best that can be done.
Thanks, Greg, for that explanation and comparison. Unfortunately it requires a basic sense of trust in our institutions that too many here seem to not have.
I have never forgiven Janes Comey for throwing the election to Trump by announcing that the FBI was reopening an investigation of Hillary’s emails—10 days before the election. The investigation was a dud but it defeated her.
Is it possible that Trump won’t be able to talk himself out of this mess? It’s about time that something sticks to him. Teflon Don the con man & pathological liar hopefully is sweating.
…………………………………
Data on Financial Transfers Bolstered Suspicions That Russia Offered Bounties
Analysts have used other evidence to conclude that the transfers were likely part of an effort to offer payments to Taliban-linked militants to kill American and coalition troops in Afghanistan.
June 30, 2020, 1:20 p.m. ET
American officials intercepted electronic data showing large financial transfers from a bank account controlled by Russia’s military intelligence agency to a Taliban-linked account, which was among the evidence that supported their conclusion that Russia covertly offered bounties for killing U.S. and coalition troops in Afghanistan, according to three officials familiar with the intelligence.
Though the United States has accused Russia of providing general support to the Taliban before, analysts concluded from other intelligence that the transfers were most likely part of a bounty program that detainees described during interrogations. Investigators also identified by name numerous Afghans in a network linked to the suspected Russian operation, the officials said — including, two of them added, a man believed to have served as an intermediary for distributing some of the funds and who is now thought to be in Russia…
The disclosures further undercut White House officials’ claim that the intelligence was too uncertain to brief President Trump. In fact, the information was provided to him in his daily written brief in late February, two officials have said….
The three American officials who described and confirmed details about the basis for the intelligence assessment spoke on condition of anonymity amid swelling turmoil over the Trump administration’s failure to authorize any response to Russia’s suspected proxy targeting of American troops and downplaying of the issue after it came to light four days ago.
White House and National Security Council officials declined to comment, as did the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, John Ratcliffe. They pointed to statements late Monday from Mr. Ratcliffe; the national security adviser, Robert C. O’Brien; and the Pentagon’s top spokesman, Jonathan Hoffman. All of them said that recent news reports about Afghanistan remained unsubstantiated.
On Monday, the administration invited several House Republicans to the White House to discuss the intelligence. The briefing was mostly carried out by three Trump administration officials: Mr. Ratcliffe, Mark Meadows, the White House chief of staff, and Mr. O’Brien. Until recently, both Mr. Meadows and Mr. Ratcliffe were Republican congressmen known for being outspoken supporters of Mr. Trump…
But she [White House press secretary, Kayleigh McEnany,] and other administration officials demurred when pressed to say whether their denials encompassed the president’s daily written briefing, a compendium of the most significant intelligence and analysis that the intelligence community writes for presidents to read. Mr. Trump is known to often neglect reading his written briefings…
Why Does Trump Put Russia First?
It’s exceedingly difficult to believe that no one told the president about the intelligence on Russian efforts to harm Americans in Afghanistan.
By Susan E. Rice
Ms. Rice is a former national security adviser.
Here’s what should have happened. Had I, as national security adviser, received even “raw” reporting that Russia was paying to kill U.S. service members, I would have walked straight into the Oval Office to brief the president.
Contrary to the spin-masters in the White House today, I would not have waited until we had absolute certainty. I would have said, “Mr. President, I want to make sure you are aware that we have troubling reporting that Russia is paying the Taliban to kill our forces in Afghanistan. I will work with the intelligence community to ensure the information is solid. In the meantime, I will convene the national security team to get you some options for how to respond to this apparent major escalation in Russia’s hostile actions.”
If later the president decided, as Mr. Trump did, that he wanted to talk with President Vladimir Putin of Russia at least six times over the next several weeks and invite him to join the Group of 7 summit over the objections of our allies, I would have thrown a red flag: “Mr. President, I want to remind you that we believe the Russians are killing American soldiers. This is not the time to hand Putin an olive branch. It’s the time to punish him.”
This is what would have happened in any prior administration of either political party….
Most recently, we have learned that even Russian efforts to slaughter American troops in cold blood do not faze this president. Mr. Trump brushes off the information, evades responsibility and fails to take action — not even lodging a diplomatic protest. Now Mr. Putin knows he can kill Americans with impunity.
What must we conclude from all this? At best, our commander in chief is utterly derelict in his duties, presiding over a dangerously dysfunctional national security process that is putting our country and those who wear its uniform at great risk. At worst, the White House is being run by liars and wimps catering to a tyrannical president who is actively advancing our arch adversary’s nefarious interests.