Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

US Intelligence Chiefs Brief Congress

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • US Intelligence Chiefs Brief Congress

    Testifying before Congress, the US Intelligence chiefs disagreed with Trump's 'assessments' on foreign threats to the US. They also commented on climate change as a threat to the US. Further, the southern border and illegal crossings were not brought up at all. They clearly demonstrated that Trump is singularly informed on US security and is not telling the truth to the American public on this subject.

    https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/29/polit...ump/index.html

    Senate Majority Leader also commented that Trump's idea of pulling out of Syria and Afghanistan is wrong-headed.

    https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/29/polit...tan/index.html

    In short, Trump is showing, once again, his lack of veracity, understanding of foreign policy, and what he does not know, he makes up. This is not a good position for the United States, especially with Trump's failure/refusal to inform the US Intelligence chiefs what he talked about in private with Putin in Hamburg and Helsinki.

    The question arises, therefore, what is Trump hiding?
    We are not now that strength which in old days
    Moved earth and heaven; that which we are we are; One equal temper of heroic hearts
    Made weak by time and fate but strong in will
    To strive to seek to find and not to yield.

  • #2
    More ignorance and stupidity by Trump:

    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world...cid=spartandhp
    We are not now that strength which in old days
    Moved earth and heaven; that which we are we are; One equal temper of heroic hearts
    Made weak by time and fate but strong in will
    To strive to seek to find and not to yield.

    Comment


    • #3
      Maybe this reply really belongs here.

      Originally posted by Paddybhoy View Post
      [The administration of Pres Geo W Bush] didn't rely on [the US intelligence community] he cajoled them for and cherry picked data to present false story to sell to the American public.
      Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
      What makes them correct and Trump wrong? Or, both wrong? US intelligence has had more than one failure, and even a number of spectacular ones. Your TDS is clouding your assessment again.
      You're right: intelligence can be right, intelligence can be wrong, intelligence can be mind-bogglingly wrong. One of the items missing from the 2002 Iraq National Intelligence Estimate was its dissenting counterpart: commonly NIEs are published in pairs -- the "maintream" NIE, and the dissenting NIE. Let's level here: intelligence is not a science, it's an art. Reasonable people, working in good faith, can very easily look at the same raw data set and come away with different conclusions. When it comes to analyzing intel -- where numerous variables are normally missing, that level of dissent can easily grow. What was it, 1988, 1989, when the intel community produced their now infamous NIE claiming the the Soviet Union had many years of vitality still in it? What wasn't reported in the media was that there was a dissenting NIE that forecast just the opposite, that the USSR was in deep trouble and only had a couple of years of life left in her. In 2002 there was no dissenting NIE because the National Command Authority put all kinds of pressure on the intel community to produce the NIE that the NCA wanted, on a timetable consistent with the NCA's political needs. Granted, much of yesterday's testimony was, I'm assuming, classified, but I'd be curious to know if there were dissenting NIE's or other reports on the subjects discussed during yesterday's testimony, and how those dissenting reports differed with the "mainstream" version reported in the media. Then we might have a more solid idea about the veracity of Pres Trump's assessments. Without those dissenting analyses. we're arguing in a vacuum, and that only serves partisan shills, not the strategic needs of the United States.
      I was married for two ******* years! Hell would be like Club Med! - Sam Kinison

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Massena View Post
        More ignorance and stupidity by Trump:

        https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world...cid=spartandhp
        Just can't let that TDS go for a second huh?

        Comment


        • #5
          Trump wasnít elected by the intelligence agencies.
          Letís face it, given the long record of abysmal failures by our various intelligence agencies and the abuses of power by some members of those agents and the undeniable fact that many have their own agenda one must ask, Who can we trust?
          ​​​​​These agencies have been infiltrated by spies, some of their agents have been turned to work against our nation. We have seen these agencies be manipulated in the past to support our involvement with less than honorable acts against duly elected foreign politicians.
          We have been dragged into armed conflicts based on heavily edited reports.
          Field agents warnings and reports have been ignored or shredded and some of those agents have been silenced so political agendas can go forth.
          Who can you trust?
          Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.

          Comment


          • #6
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i9Fx6-jaoyI
            "Ask not what your country can do for you"

            Left wing, Right Wing same bird that they are killing.

            youíre entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by slick_miester View Post
              Maybe this reply really belongs here.





              You're right: intelligence can be right, intelligence can be wrong, intelligence can be mind-bogglingly wrong. One of the items missing from the 2002 Iraq National Intelligence Estimate was its dissenting counterpart: commonly NIEs are published in pairs -- the "maintream" NIE, and the dissenting NIE. Let's level here: intelligence is not a science, it's an art. Reasonable people, working in good faith, can very easily look at the same raw data set and come away with different conclusions. When it comes to analyzing intel -- where numerous variables are normally missing, that level of dissent can easily grow. What was it, 1988, 1989, when the intel community produced their now infamous NIE claiming the the Soviet Union had many years of vitality still in it? What wasn't reported in the media was that there was a dissenting NIE that forecast just the opposite, that the USSR was in deep trouble and only had a couple of years of life left in her. In 2002 there was no dissenting NIE because the National Command Authority put all kinds of pressure on the intel community to produce the NIE that the NCA wanted, on a timetable consistent with the NCA's political needs. Granted, much of yesterday's testimony was, I'm assuming, classified, but I'd be curious to know if there were dissenting NIE's or other reports on the subjects discussed during yesterday's testimony, and how those dissenting reports differed with the "mainstream" version reported in the media. Then we might have a more solid idea about the veracity of Pres Trump's assessments. Without those dissenting analyses. we're arguing in a vacuum, and that only serves partisan shills, not the strategic needs of the United States.
              The other point that people often forget is Saddam did his best to make the world believe he had nukes. It was not really till a month before the invasion he started to back track and even then he failed to do I am fully innocent dance. How often did he mess with inspecctors.

              Intel semi relies on assumptions. one of those usually being reasonable actors involved or what we believe is reasonable.

              Comment


              • #8
                I like the title of this thread too. Intelligence chiefs brief congress... That's an oxymoron like military intelligence. Congress has no intelligence but does have boatloads of stupid so having a bunch of bureaucratic managers come in to brief them is sort of anti-thematic to the process.

                Maybe Hank Johnson will ask them some really pointed question about how China stays afloat with so many people living there...

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by craven View Post

                  The other point that people often forget is Saddam did his best to make the world believe he had nukes. It was not really till a month before the invasion he started to back track and even then he failed to do I am fully innocent dance. How often did he mess with inspecctors.

                  Intel semi relies on assumptions. one of those usually being reasonable actors involved or what we believe is reasonable.
                  You don't have to be in intelligence to rely on assumptions when sufficient data is absent: we do that in our everyday lives. It's just in the intel biz, our enemies -- and even our friends -- deliberately conceal at least some data, or they deliberately misrepresent it, exaggerate, embellish, diminish it. With so many variables hidden from view, one has little choice but to fill in the gaps with assumption or supposition, inference or deduction. The question then becomes, is, or to what degree, are the analysts' assumptions influenced by his/her self-interests, biases, prejudices, education, background, etc. That's why the counterintelligence folks always say, "I know I'm paranoid -- but am I paranoid enough?" And that's why dissenting analyses are important: just as active citizens should cull their news not from one source alone but from as many as might be practical, so too must decision-makers gain their analyses from multiple sources, as well -- to attempt to account for analysts' biases, interests, etc.

                  Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
                  I like the title of this thread too. Intelligence chiefs brief congress... That's an oxymoron like military intelligence. Congress has no intelligence but does have boatloads of stupid so having a bunch of bureaucratic managers come in to brief them is sort of anti-thematic to the process.

                  Maybe Hank Johnson will ask them some really pointed question about how China stays afloat with so many people living there...
                  Yeah, you're right: there's a lot of a$$holes in the intel biz -- and there are even more on Capitol Hill. Nevertheless, the United States is a participatory republic: citizens vote for representatives to make these kinds of decisions. So if we don't employ career intel folks, then who will do the republic's intel work -- and if the intel services are not overseen by Congress, then how will we the people ever know what the hell they're doing, in our name?
                  I was married for two ******* years! Hell would be like Club Med! - Sam Kinison

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post

                    Just can't let that TDS go for a second huh?
                    Your invented 'malady' is not an issue. The following is:

                    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/factc...cid=spartandhp
                    We are not now that strength which in old days
                    Moved earth and heaven; that which we are we are; One equal temper of heroic hearts
                    Made weak by time and fate but strong in will
                    To strive to seek to find and not to yield.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      The initial concerns and supposed focus of the investigation was if "the Russians" had affected the 2016 election. Implication being on either changed votes or changed vote counts. Communications between Trump and associates prior and up to the election appear to have been either prior and on-going business activities or on a scale such as we saw from the Clinton campaign in their efforts to "find dirt".

                      However, "the Russians" are persistent and bothersome;

                      Russians leaked Mueller investigation evidence online, prosecutors say
                      ...
                      https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...cid=spartandhp

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Massena View Post

                        Your invented 'malady' is not an issue. The following is:

                        https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/factc...cid=spartandhp
                        On Iran, I'd rather err on the side of we need to stomp them into the ground than on "They're just misunderstood..."

                        In fact, I'd assess that across the board. The intelligence community seems to have been infected by PC and getting in touch with their feelings. Not a good thing. We should have intelligence people who give out factual information and then pose the worse case scenarios for decision making. The alternative is possibly another Pearl Harbor or 9/11.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Anything to defend Trump...and that is both disingenuous and despicable.
                          We are not now that strength which in old days
                          Moved earth and heaven; that which we are we are; One equal temper of heroic hearts
                          Made weak by time and fate but strong in will
                          To strive to seek to find and not to yield.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post

                            On Iran, I'd rather err on the side of we need to stomp them into the ground than on "They're just misunderstood..."

                            In fact, I'd assess that across the board. The intelligence community seems to have been infected by PC and getting in touch with their feelings. Not a good thing. We should have intelligence people who give out factual information and then pose the worse case scenarios for decision making. The alternative is possibly another Pearl Harbor or 9/11.
                            That PC factor reflects in that here we are nearly 18 years later and still they can't state that what we are fighting in the "GWOT" is Islamic Jihad by fundamentalist Muslims. This is like fighting Germany in WWII and not admitting that it's really the Nazis/NSDAP that has caused all the mess.
                            I realize we don't want to "offend" our Muslim allied nations assisting in the GWOT (against Islamic Jihad) by allowing for some blur of focus and terms, but I think we could speak honestly about whom and what the enemy really is. That would seem a basic page from Sun Tzu and the sort of information "intelligence agencies/assets" should be providing.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Massena View Post
                              Anything to defend Trump...and that is both disingenuous and despicable.
                              Many of us would say the same thing regards anything used to attack and denigrate him.

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X