Irrespective of your opinion of Trump, I think one has to be quite naive and in denial about our recent history to believe a totally unsourced, evidence-free assertion made by our intelligence community – the same one that lies all the time. That all our media outlets are repeating this as though it has been verified as fact, each citing one another as their proof, should be the biggest disgrace.
All western mass media outlets are now shrieking about the story The New York Timesfirst reported, citing zero evidence and naming zero sources, claiming intelligence says Russia paid out bounties to Taliban-linked fighters in Afghanistan for attacking the occupying forces of the US and its allies in Afghanistan. As of this writing, and probably forevermore, there have still been zero intelligence sources named and zero evidence provided for this claim.
As we discussed yesterday, the only correct response to unsubstantiated claims by anonymous spooks in a post-Iraq invasion world is to assume that they are lying until you’ve been provided with a mountain of hard, independently verifiable evidence to the contrary. The fact that The New York Times instead chose to uncritically parrot these evidence-free claims made by operatives within intelligence agencies with a known track record of lying about exactly these things is nothing short of journalistic malpractice. The fact that western media outlets are now unanimously regurgitating these still 100 percent baseless assertions is nothing short of state propaganda.
The consensus-manufacturing, Overton window-shrinking western propaganda apparatus has been in full swing with mass media outlets claiming on literally no basis whatsoever that they have confirmed one another’s “great reporting” on this completely unsubstantiated story.
This is really a story about trump’s inaction on Russia now isn’t it? We know the information about possible Russian bounties on US soldiers was briefed to trump. A fact.
That trump did and will never do diddly squat to address the report regardless of it’s 110% verification is, well, the problem.
Putin is pleased. American servicemen and women are in danger.
The issue here is not whether Trump was briefed, but whether the story is true in the first place. Again, it is an evidence-free assertion from unnamed intelligence sources. NO ONE should take intelligence sources a their word, particularly when they are spreading stories that slant against their enemies.
That said:
President Donald Trump was not verbally briefed on reports Russia paid militants to kill US soldiers, said national security adviser Robert O’Brien, because of a lack of confidence in the intelligence.
The CIA officer decided the intelligence was not verified.
If that’s the best summation, I’d hate to see the worst. Calling the assertions 100% baseless is pretty baseless.
But I agree in general that people are running with this too fast for the evidence provided. It’s almost like the accusation is so horrible that it adds weight to the evidence, which is spotty.
But there have been a lot of different avenues of evidence, and the Trump team’s lack of ability to focus on a defense makes me think that even they aren’t sure exactly what the case is. Their current suggestion that “it didn’t rise to the level needed” for a PDB with Trump hemming and hawing his way through the interview—which he never does, he’s always very certain whether he lies or tells the truth—makes it sound like he’s been coached and got confused. Trump’s people don’t know what the truth is—and they DON’T CARE. They just want to make it go away.
Earlier in this story’s cycle it resembled the Dan Rather/George W Bush ROTC documents that turned out to be a forgery. In that case the White House made no comment on the evidence, knowing it to be false and setting Rather up for a fall. I think we’re past that point now, nothing was setup, but the White House still doesn’t know what the facts are.
Tribal much? Skepticism of unsupported claims by U.S. intelligence should be the default position of progressives. That the Liberal establishment has become the perpetrator of a new McCarthyism in which distrust of evidence-free CIA narratives is equated with Putin sympathy is not a development I would have predicted just 5 years ago.
This is classic misdirection. Those quotes and that article refer to the intel from 2019. Meanwhile, here in 2020, the intel has become solid, and Trump was briefed verbally and in writing in Febuary.
ETA: And the use of the term “McCarthyism” to describe the situation needs to die in a fire. What you characterize as “McCarthyism” is the exact opposite of what McCarthyism actually was (open a history book, fer chrissakes!) with the exception of some of the geography.
A 30-year old operation from the Cold War doesn’t excuse the US President ignoring his intelligence briefing this year and failing to even attempt to protect American lives. But really, whataboutism is exactly how Trump defends and dismisses Russia’s bad actions:
"There are a lot of killers. You think our country’s so innocent?“
“Both sides, I guess.”
That’s not the proper response for a president (or, I suggest, for anyone).
I do not believe either crime of funding murderers of your enemy is acceptable or excusable. I would rather burn both country’s feet to stumps as I hold them over the fires of accountability. its just that the one makes me think of the other. no justification, just a cycle of loosing eyes until there isn’t even a one eyed king.
I understand your take and why you thought so though =)
Which this article goes into without actually showing any evidence of a bounty on US troops, right from the headline through the article the story is that a suspicion exists and that other evidence supports (but does not prove) the suspicion.
The real story is why the President did not do anything about it and indeed claims not to know anything about it.
