Anyone else notice the specific “verbally”?
So it might have been written down, but it didn’t fit in his 5 bullet points of the day.
So it’s like every other article based on classified information? The reporters didn’t name their source or print copies of the corroborating evidence, because that is the norm for such an article. The SOP is to confirm the source is real and confirm the evidence is real, often looping in their editor(s) to make sure it’s credible. Then run the story. Otherwise, they risk revealing the source (which is bad for the source and bad for the reporter).
Agreed that the real story is, why is the president treating Russia like a close ally when they are treating the US as an enemy? (@Kaneda_Jones) Because, while these kind of bounty programs have been around before, they’ve only been deployed against enemies in either a cold or hot war.
It’s gonna be a long 4 days…
Yeah, but George W. Bush simply failed to prevent 9/11. He didn’t actively buddy around with Osama Bin Laden after intelligence reports indicated the planned attack on Americans just because he was hoping Bin Laden could help him get re-elected.
Bush was an incompetent war criminal but I wouldn’t call him a traitor.
This report (and others) names the GRU and that funds are going from Russia to the Taliban and that the Taliban are using that money to pay Afghan criminals outside the Taliban. And obviously this money is intended among other purposes to destabilise, through assassination, the existing regime and its supporters including the NATO troops, but an actual bounty on soldiers from UK and USA is not asserted with such confidence.
The forensic accounting reportedly indicates these payments were different and separate from the regular Taliban support, and It’s not that easy to ignore the dotted line from these payments to the actual reports from prisoners that they were earmarked for the bounties.
I’m skeptical of the “confessions” of prisoners from a theater of war, due to the likelihood that they were coerced (at least), but when you have the payment records and recovered bundles of cash, that adds significant weight to the reporting.
That 1983 photo, and the associated Cold War actions, don’t excuse Trump’s failure to heed intelligence briefings regarding Russia in 2020. They also don’t excuse, or explain, Trump’s bizarre and repeated insistence that Putin is a trustworthy ally in 2020.
True. Deserter, baseball team owner, and general scumbucket, but not traitor. Not like Donny.
Edit: I meant Deserter (AWOL over 30 days).
From the article:
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.
I note also that the NY Times commits a now-common bit of journalistic malpractice by allowing intel sources to remain anonymous even as they push the government’s intel narrative. This is a form of stenography for power. Anonymity should only be granted to people like whistleblowers, who are adversarial to the official line and actually need to be protected.
That really is you isn’t it trump.
It’s usually pretty obvious which stories are leaks and which are plants, but some people don’t seem to get it.
Now they are saying they put it in the written briefing but left it out of the verbal presentation.
Who cares where they put it? Trump ignored it to not miss a stroke on Putin’s lubed up girthy plans for the demise of America. A happy ending for Putin at least.
The sources ARE providing information that is adversarial to the narrative of the White House.
This isn’t analogous to when the Bush administration leaked intel to the press to bolster their claims of WMDs in Iraq, it’s more like when dissidents in the government leaked information confirming that the Bush/Cheney regime were misrepresenting the intel to sell the war.
First, “the government’s” intel narrative is contrary to the anonymous sources’ intel narrative. And, second, maintaining sources’ anonymity is the literal opposite of “journalistic malpractice.”
I’m not sure what narrative you’re trying to peddle here, but it’s frankly seeming pretty nonsensical.
Looks like putting the UD in FUD.
