The prospect of a second Trump presidency has the intelligence community on edge

[heybruce]

27 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

 

I think you are exaggerating when you claim: And still there are some here who insist Russia is in no way a threat. Russia is absolutely a threat a big threat. But does he have resources (without China and Iran) for a big move against NATO? I don't think so, do you?

 

And contrary to what the left would have us believe, I seen nothing to indicate the world would be worse off with regard to Russia under Trump then under Biden. 

Why a big move?  Why not continue the salami slice approach to building a bigger empire that it is using now?

 

What do you think the long term consequences of Trump's "America First", meaning America alone in the world, policy?  I think a likely outcome would be a Chinese-Russian alliance dominating the Eurasian continent and world trade, with America isolated and alone. 

 

A wild card would be the prosperous, technically advanced democratic countries of East Asia.  After Trump officially or unofficially withdraws the guarantee of protection offered by America's nuclear umbrella, would they acquiesce to Chinese dominance, or acquire nuclear weapons on their own.  Would they use them?

 

I see both America and the world being much poorer and more dangerous with a Trump Presidency than it is now.

 

A true America first policy would be to have America as part of strong alliances with other democratic nations, sharing defense capabilities and the benefits of global trade.

[Yellowtail]

16 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Why a big move?  Why not continue the salami slice approach to building a bigger empire that it is using now?

What I said was: Russia is absolutely a threat a big threat. But does he have resources (without China and Iran) for a big move against NATO? I don't think so, do you?

 

If you want an honest discussion, why not answer my questions? 

 

I do not see him doing anything until he's done in Ukraine, but if he gets out of there, with some level of success, he will continue. 

 

16 minutes ago, heybruce said:

What do you think the long term consequences of Trump's "America First", meaning America alone in the world, policy? 

Why do you equate "America First" with "America alone in the world"? What country do you think the President consider first with come first with respect to foreign policy? 

 

I support Trump's "America First" policy, and as I understand it, it means "peace through strength, no better friend, no worse enemy."  

 

16 minutes ago, heybruce said:

I think a likely outcome would be a Chinese-Russian alliance dominating the Eurasian continent and world trade, with America isolated and alone. 

I think the Russia-China-Iran alliance ship has sailed, and I think that is largely the fault of the Biden Administration. 

16 minutes ago, heybruce said:

A wild card would be the prosperous, technically advanced democratic countries of East Asia.  After Trump officially or unofficially withdraws the guarantee of protection offered by America's nuclear umbrella, would they acquiesce to Chinese dominance, or acquire nuclear weapons on their own.  Would they use them?

What is this "America alone in the world" based on, some CNN pundit? 

 

Why do we hear so little about the threat Iran poses? Do you not think it significant? It seems like the Obama and Biden both love them some Iran. 

16 minutes ago, heybruce said:

I see both America and the world being much poorer and more dangerous with a Trump Presidency than it is now.

And I see I see both America and the world being much richer and significantly safer with a second Trump Presidency than it is now.

16 minutes ago, heybruce said:

A true America first policy would be to have America as part of strong alliances with other democratic nations, sharing defense capabilities and the benefits of global trade.

And that's what I see as the Trump's "America First" policy being. Again, "peace through strength, no better friend, no worse enemy."

[G_Money]

On 3/4/2024 at 7:04 PM, xylophone said:

YES, you keep me and others amused as it is not often one comes across someone like you who totally believes the cult leader, convicted crook and compulsive liar. Funny is as funny does and believes.

I guess it went over your head.  Liberals certainly lack a sense of humor.

 

Did you ever watch Goodfellas?

[G_Money]

On 3/4/2024 at 7:15 PM, scottiejohn said:

I think he mis spelled the word!

I suggest you replace the "u" in funny with an "a" and you might get the message, but then again I am not so sure about your intellectual capability to undertake such an educated and onerous task!

And you are the epitome of intelligence.  lol.  I beg to differ.

[G_Money]

On 3/4/2024 at 7:23 PM, scottiejohn said:

You do not lose polls!

If you are talking politically you lose elections and the polls are only as good as the probably slanted questions put to the probably slanted pollsters!

Another second of my life I will never get back.

[G_Money]

On 3/4/2024 at 7:35 PM, scottiejohn said:

I see you survived Trump’s last presidency.  Yes I was one of the lucky ones!!!

 

How is your life different today under Biden?   Better!

Actually, I am pretty fortunate.  Other than some minor issues, I’m doing well regardless of who is President.

 

But I will say it was better under Trump for myself and 90% of the legal US population.

 

I do appreciate your concern though.

[G_Money]

22 hours ago, Phulublub said:

Says the man who gets his information from Fox News!!!!!!

 

PH

And many of the post from Fox I’ve posted are from real people, real issues, real problems and real complaints.  
 

Try reading a few.  You just might actually learn something.  Not holding my breath though.

Now, I understand it’s hard for you and your fellow comrades on the forum that live there lives and get their information from the spread sheets, statistics, numbers, data and biased opinions from the liberal news media.

My nickname for them, Basement Dwellers.  In mom’s house or not.

 

[scottiejohn]

29 minutes ago, G_Money said:

Actually, I am pretty fortunate.  Other than some minor issues, I’m doing well regardless of who is President.

 

But I will say it was better under Trump for myself and 90% of the legal US population.

 

I do appreciate your concern though.

I most certainly did NOT express any concern for you!

[G_Money]

19 hours ago, heybruce said:

So the only information you believe is that endorsed by Trump?

 

Have you read "1984"?  Are you shilling for a 21st century Big Brother?

“So the only information you believe is that endorsed by Trump?“

 

Go back to your spreadsheet or stats database and retrieve when I said that.

[G_Money]

42 minutes ago, scottiejohn said:

I most certainly did NOT express any concern for you!

Don't hate .  It’ goes against the core values of liberalism.

 

You know your principles,  acceptance, tolerance, compassion. diversity.  Did I cover them all?

Edited March 5 by G_Money

[heybruce]

On 3/4/2024 at 6:49 AM, G_Money said:

Posted October, 2023 under Biden’s administration.

 

What on earth did you expect it to say other than their biased opinion.

 

5 hours ago, G_Money said:

“So the only information you believe is that endorsed by Trump?“

 

Go back to your spreadsheet or stats database and retrieve when I said that.

It certainly seems like you're stating that you will only accept information from Trump approved sources.

[thaibeachlovers]

5 hours ago, G_Money said:

Don't hate .  It’ goes against the core values of liberalism.

 

You know your principles,  acceptance, tolerance, compassion. diversity.  Did I cover them all?

I think they rewrote their values to include "it's OK to hate Trump, as he's more evil than Satan, Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Ghengis Khan, and any other nasty they can think of".

[heybruce]

6 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

What I said was: Russia is absolutely a threat a big threat. But does he have resources (without China and Iran) for a big move against NATO? I don't think so, do you?

 

If you want an honest discussion, why not answer my questions? 

 

I do not see him doing anything until he's done in Ukraine, but if he gets out of there, with some level of success, he will continue. 

 

Why do you equate "America First" with "America alone in the world"? What country do you think the President consider first with come first with respect to foreign policy? 

 

I support Trump's "America First" policy, and as I understand it, it means "peace through strength, no better friend, no worse enemy."  

 

I think the Russia-China-Iran alliance ship has sailed, and I think that is largely the fault of the Biden Administration. 

What is this "America alone in the world" based on, some CNN pundit? 

 

Why do we hear so little about the threat Iran poses? Do you not think it significant? It seems like the Obama and Biden both love them some Iran. 

And I see I see both America and the world being much richer and significantly safer with a second Trump Presidency than it is now.

And that's what I see as the Trump's "America First" policy being. Again, "peace through strength, no better friend, no worse enemy."

Wow!  So much deflection.

 

"What I said was: Russia is absolutely a threat a big threat. But does he have resources (without China and Iran) for a big move against NATO? I don't think so, do you?"

 

What I posted was that Russia would continue its salami slice approach to expanding its empire.  Do I really have to explain what that means?  Must I point out that Russia has no incentive to make a big move when the salami slice approach is working?

 

"I do not see him doing anything until he's done in Ukraine, but if he gets out of there, with some level of success, he will continue."

 

Isn't that a good reason to not let him succeed in Ukraine?

 

"Why do you equate "America First" with "America alone in the world"? What country do you think the President consider first with come first with respect to foreign policy?"

 

Because I can't believe any of our current allies would ever trust us if we engage in the betrayals proposed by Trump, and that going it alone in the modern world is not an option.  North Korea is stubbornly trying that, what do you think of their results?

 

"I support Trump's "America First" policy, and as I understand it, it means "peace through strength, no better friend, no worse enemy." "

 

"Peace from strength" is not good enough in a world in which the US has a small fraction of wealth, resources, military power, etc. 

 

"I think the Russia-China-Iran alliance ship has sailed, and I think that is largely the fault of the Biden Administration. 

What is this "America alone in the world" based on, some CNN pundit?"

 

What part of the "Russia-China-Iran alliance" do you think Trump would have prevented?

 

No, America alone is based on a military career largely focused on preventing the final war, or winning it (if such a thing were possible) if war can't be prevented.  It's a depressing thought, but I believe that the "end of the world war" has been prevented by deterrence since the 1950's by me and many other people considering these things and how to prevent them.

 

Why do you ask?  Do you think you have a better formed projection of where Trump would lead us?

 

I won't address the Iran deflection and sound-bite nonsense you ended with.

 

 

[Hawaiian]

33 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I think they rewrote their values to include "it's OK to hate Trump, as he's more evil than Satan, Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Ghengis Khan, and any other nasty they can think of".

Things are beginning to blow up for these haters, and not in their favor.  Hate is self-destructive.

https://www.everydayhealth.com/emotional-health/destructive-power-hate/

 

[G_Money]

Appears Charles Barkley is on edge, big time!

 

https://www.foxnews.com/sports/congressman-wesley-hunt-fires-back-charles-barkley-donald-trump-mugshot-comments

Edited March 6 by G_Money

[Yellowtail]

15 hours ago, heybruce said:

Wow!  So much deflection.

 

"What I said was: Russia is absolutely a threat a big threat. But does he have resources (without China and Iran) for a big move against NATO? I don't think so, do you?"

 

What I posted was that Russia would continue its salami slice approach to expanding its empire.  Do I really have to explain what that means?  Must I point out that Russia has no incentive to make a big move when the salami slice approach is working?

 

"I do not see him doing anything until he's done in Ukraine, but if he gets out of there, with some level of success, he will continue."

 

Isn't that a good reason to not let him succeed in Ukraine?

 

"Why do you equate "America First" with "America alone in the world"? What country do you think the President consider first with come first with respect to foreign policy?"

 

Because I can't believe any of our current allies would ever trust us if we engage in the betrayals proposed by Trump, and that going it alone in the modern world is not an option.  North Korea is stubbornly trying that, what do you think of their results?

 

"I support Trump's "America First" policy, and as I understand it, it means "peace through strength, no better friend, no worse enemy." "

 

"Peace from strength" is not good enough in a world in which the US has a small fraction of wealth, resources, military power, etc. 

 

"I think the Russia-China-Iran alliance ship has sailed, and I think that is largely the fault of the Biden Administration. 

What is this "America alone in the world" based on, some CNN pundit?"

 

What part of the "Russia-China-Iran alliance" do you think Trump would have prevented?

 

No, America alone is based on a military career largely focused on preventing the final war, or winning it (if such a thing were possible) if war can't be prevented.  It's a depressing thought, but I believe that the "end of the world war" has been prevented by deterrence since the 1950's by me and many other people considering these things and how to prevent them.

 

Why do you ask?  Do you think you have a better formed projection of where Trump would lead us?

 

I won't address the Iran deflection and sound-bite nonsense you ended with.

 

 

That's what I thought, thanks. 

[heybruce]

2 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

That's what I thought, thanks. 

No rebuttal so I assume you understand and agree.

[ozimoron]

 

[Yellowtail]

27 minutes ago, heybruce said:

No rebuttal so I assume you understand and agree.

No, but given your inability/unwillingness to comprehend what I wrote and respond to it appropriately I see no point in putting any more effort into a discussion when you are just going to ignore what I say and regurgitate the same thing over and over. 

[heybruce]

1 hour ago, Yellowtail said:

No, but given your inability/unwillingness to comprehend what I wrote and respond to it appropriately I see no point in putting any more effort into a discussion when you are just going to ignore what I say and regurgitate the same thing over and over. 

Ok, allow me to explain, one point at a time, in greater detail; starting with your insistence that I answer your question " But does he have resources (without China and Iran) for a big move against NATO? I don't think so, do you? "

 

I thought I'd made my answer clear, but apparently not.  As I explained before, Russia's salami slice approach to expanding its empire is working.  Why would Russia stop doing what's working?  With that in mind, it doesn't matter if Russia currently has the resources for a big move against NATO.  It doesn't need to do so.

 

If that part finally clear, I'd like to move on to the issue of America assuring its allies that it's nuclear deterrence umbrella covers them as well.  An assurance vital to preventing nuclear proliferation with its corresponding increase of nuclear war.  An assurance Trump has thrown in doubt. 

 

Can we discuss that, or are you still unclear as to why Russia doesn't need to make a big move against NATO?

 

I realize that I am trying to bring the discussion to a level that Trump supporters desperately try to avoid, but is really important that all US voters consider these disturbing scenarios.  Otherwise the country and the world can blunder into disaster.

Edited March 6 by heybruce

[Yellowtail]

10 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Ok, allow me to explain, one point at a time, in greater detail; starting with your insistence that I answer your question " But does he have resources (without China and Iran) for a big move against NATO? I don't think so, do you? "

 

I thought I'd made my answer clear, but apparently not.  As I explained before, Russia's salami slice approach to expanding its empire is working.  Why would Russia stop doing what's working?  With that in mind, it doesn't matter if Russia currently has the resources for a big move against NATO.  It doesn't need to do so.

You said that before, and I understood it before, yet now you just regurgitate it.

 

Is that a yes or a no? 

10 minutes ago, heybruce said:

If that part finally clear, I'd like to move on to the issue of America assuring its allies that it's nuclear deterrence umbrella covers them as well.  An assurance vital to preventing nuclear proliferation with its corresponding increase of nuclear war.  An assurance Trump has thrown in doubt. 

How has Trump thrown this into doubt?

10 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Can we discuss that, or are you still unclear as to why Russia doesn't need to make a big move against NATO?

I never said they needed to make a big move on NATO, you just used that to deflect. Twice. 

10 minutes ago, heybruce said:

I realize that I am trying to bring the discussion to a level that Trump supporters desperately try to avoid, but is really important that all US voters consider these disturbing scenarios.  Otherwise the country and the world can blunder into disaster.

So now because you are unwilling or unable to answer my questions or support you claim you call me names. Typical.  

 

I see the country blundering into disaster fast under Biden, how is Trump going to make it worse? 

 

What do you think Biden's plan it to end the Ukraine conflict, and what do you think it should be? 

[heybruce]

5 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

You said that before, and I understood it before, yet now you just regurgitate it.

 

Is that a yes or a no? 

How has Trump thrown this into doubt?

I never said they needed to make a big move on NATO, you just used that to deflect. Twice. 

So now because you are unwilling or unable to answer my questions or support you claim you call me names. Typical.  

 

I see the country blundering into disaster fast under Biden, how is Trump going to make it worse? 

 

What do you think Biden's plan it to end the Ukraine conflict, and what do you think it should be? 

Yes or no to what?

 

You posted "Russia is absolutely a threat a big threat. But does he have resources (without China and Iran) for a big move against NATO? I don't think so, do you?"  

 

I explained why Russia doesn't need to make a big move; the salami slice approach is working.  Can you not see that my response makes your question irrelevant?  But if you must have an answer, I don't know and neither do you.  The assumption that China and Iran would not be involved is questionable, and Putin has repeatedly demonstrated poor judgment, possibly the result of poor information. 

Trump has thrown nuclear deterrence into doubt by running his mouth without a filter.  You know, the quality Trump supporters stupidly think is a good thing.

"One of the presidents of a big country stood up and said, “Well, sir, if we don't pay and we’re attacked by Russia, will you protect us?” I said, “You didn’t pay, you’re delinquent?” He said, “Yes, let’s say that happened.” “No, I would not protect you. In fact, I would encourage them to do whatever the hell they want. You gotta pay. You gotta pay your bills.”"    https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2024/02/trump-rally-nato/677426/

"In December 2019, then-U.S. President Donald Trump was asked whether he thought it was worth it to have “all those” U.S. troops stationed in South Korea.

“It could be debated. I could go either way,” Trump answered." l  https://www.voanews.com/a/as-trump-looms-south-koreans-mull-their-own-nukes/6848246.html

If you don't understand why having US troops on the ground in South Korea and Europe is America's most important symbol of commitment to defending those countries then you need to go back to school.

I don't see the nation blundering into crisis under Biden, but I see Republicans trying to make that happen.  By shooting down the Border bill endorsed by the Border Patrol Union Republicans are making the border situation and fentanyl crisis worse.

"Yet only about 20% of lorries and less than 5% of cars are x-rayed as they enter America. The administration wants to increase that and send more agents to the border to curb both drug-trafficking and illegal immigration. (The two problems are quite distinct, Mr Mayorkas points out: the vast majority of drugs are intercepted at regular border crossings, not carried into America by undocumented migrants.) But last month Republicans in Congress killed a bipartisan bill that would have beefed up policing of the border, at the behest of Donald Trump, the presumptive Republican nominee for president."   https://www.economist.com/briefing/2024/02/29/americas-ten-year-old-fentanyl-epidemic-is-still-getting-worse

Biden's plan to end the war in Ukraine is to give Ukraine the weapons it needs to defend itself.  I agree with that plan and want him to do more of it with fewer restrictions. 

 

Trump's plan is to deny Ukraine these weapons, giving Putin another salami slice so he can then proceed to the next one.

You yourself posted "I do not see him doing anything until he's done in Ukraine, but if he gets out of there, with some level of success, he will continue."  Trump seems to want to give Putin that success.

Are there any other questions?  Be specific, don't troll and claim I didn't answer some unstated question.

Edited March 6 by heybruce

[Walker88]

This will be difficult for cult members to understand. This will also be difficult to understand for those who think a clown who schlepps NFTs that portray him as a fighter pilot or astronaut---things he is far too cowardly to ever be---or who sells pieces of the suit in which he was booked in Georgia for RICO violations, is qualified to be President and have the nuclear codes.

 

Intelligence, as a product, is like science via the Scientific Method of Francis Bacon. It is a gathering of as many facts as possible, and from those facts attempting to glean a truth. It is as objective as can be, which means it comes with a willingness to take in new data and information, and change the assessment if that is what is required. It is always, like science, a work in progress. Sometimes it is right, sometimes not.

 

What it never is, and never should be, is what trump wants it to be: tell him what he wants to hear based on what’s best for him or what his preconceived notions are.

 

When a President forgets what the intelligence community is supposed to tell him, or demands he be told something different, things go horribly wrong.

 

A grave mistake was made under Bush II. The actual intelligence and agency assessment was that Saddam had given up his WMD program after Gulf War i. Because a negative cannot be proven, some doubt had to remain, but that doubt was less than 15%. When the UN inspectors were in Iraq before the war, they were given what were claimed to be the top leads on where Saddam was manufacturing WMDs. That was purposeful, because the agency analysts had serious doubts and wanted it to be proven. No WMDs were found. That Saddam had most likely given up his plans---preferring instead a life of “booze, broads and palaces”, as was written back then---was the assessment. The Neocons were unwilling to accept that, and they ‘recruited’ then DCI George Tenet to go along with them. Dick Cheney kept telling the agency analysts to “tell me what I want to hear, not what you think”.

 

Cheney fell in love with a source the agency named Curveball. That was not a random name; it reflected what the agency case officers thought of the guy. The guy sought money and a resettlement somewhere in the West, and made up lies about WMDs. Because his agency handlers did not believe him, he also went to other Western intel services and told the same lies. This came to the agency via liaison contacts, but with the identity known as the same guy, Curveball. Cheney called the multiple reports, despite being lies from the same guy, “corroboration”. Cheney knew, but ignored it.

 

A speech was written partly by a then-agency analyst for Colin Powell, to be delivered before the UNGA. Cheney had the report edited. The agency analysts re-edited it. Cheney erased their editing. Gen Powell was made a fool of at the UN.

 

Bush II and Cheney decided to attack Iraq, despite knowing what agency analysts and case officers in the field reported. Cheney also tried to link Saddam with 9-11, which was totally false and for which there was not only zero intelligence, but actually contrary intelligence. ObL wanted to take out Saddam, too, but first focused on attacking the US.

 

There was similar reporting on Afghanistan. The agency, having analysts who knew the history of that country, know full well it could not be changed. Destroy the al Qaeda bases and pressure the existing Afghan government to keep al Qaeda types out, was the best the agency thought the US could achieve. Case officers (the spooks on the front lines) as well as analysts put together a white paper arguing against anything other than a very short term commitment to Afghanistan, detailing in quite prescient terms what the result of a long term effort would be:failure and a return of the Taliban.  Bush II and the Neocons ignored the intelligence assessment.

 

The result: 20 wasted years in Afghanistan, almost as many wasted years in Iraq, 6000 US soldiers killed in the two wars, $4 trillion thrown away, a million dead Iraqis from the communal, tribal and sectarian violence that still hobbles the place, and more power and influence of Iran, along with hardliners in the Islamic world.

 

Trump will not only make the mistakes Bush II made, he will be even worse, because trump wants to weaponize the entire intel community, not only to have it tell him what he wants to hear, but also to use the capabilities of all parts of the IC against critics and political opponents. He has even stated this multiple times, as in “I am your retribution”.

 

Trump got hosed by Kim Jong-un during trump’s time as POTUS. Though Kim is a psychopath, he is clever. A few love letters and he had trump under total control. That allowed Kim to speed up his own nuke and missile programs,…..lots more enriched U235, Hwasong ICBM developments that now allow DPRK missiles to strike every part of the US, miniaturization of nukes, and nuke testing via supercomputer rather than any actual detonations. In the past, Kim and his father had to move slowly, fearing a reaction from the US. Under trump, it was no holds barred, and now South Korea, Japan, and even the US are in much greater danger than before trump. Give the fragile ego trump a little praise, and you can control him. Kim knows that. So does putin.

 

Foreign intelligence services, whether Five Eyes or other liaison services, will not cooperate with a US led by trump. They have seen how reckless and untrustworthy he is, not only while he was POTUS, but when trump stole thousands of highly classified documents and brought them to his country club. They will not risk their own clandestine assets or covert collection programs just so trump can expose them, as trump did with an Israeli penetration of Islamic terror groups during his Oval Office laugh-fest with Lavrov and Kislyak. The US will be less well informed, less alert, and less safe.

 

All that is what has intel professionals fearful of another trump term. None of trump’s goobers or sycophants are capable of running a professional intelligence community nor doing the work required to identify, target, recruit and handle clandestine assets. The US will be blind in an increasingly dangerous world.

[Hawaiian]

2 hours ago, Walker88 said:

This will be difficult for cult members to understand. This will also be difficult to understand for those who think a clown who schlepps NFTs that portray him as a fighter pilot or astronaut---things he is far too cowardly to ever be---or who sells pieces of the suit in which he was booked in Georgia for RICO violations, is qualified to be President and have the nuclear codes.

 

Intelligence, as a product, is like science via the Scientific Method of Francis Bacon. It is a gathering of as many facts as possible, and from those facts attempting to glean a truth. It is as objective as can be, which means it comes with a willingness to take in new data and information, and change the assessment if that is what is required. It is always, like science, a work in progress. Sometimes it is right, sometimes not.

 

What it never is, and never should be, is what trump wants it to be: tell him what he wants to hear based on what’s best for him or what his preconceived notions are.

 

When a President forgets what the intelligence community is supposed to tell him, or demands he be told something different, things go horribly wrong.

 

A grave mistake was made under Bush II. The actual intelligence and agency assessment was that Saddam had given up his WMD program after Gulf War i. Because a negative cannot be proven, some doubt had to remain, but that doubt was less than 15%. When the UN inspectors were in Iraq before the war, they were given what were claimed to be the top leads on where Saddam was manufacturing WMDs. That was purposeful, because the agency analysts had serious doubts and wanted it to be proven. No WMDs were found. That Saddam had most likely given up his plans---preferring instead a life of “booze, broads and palaces”, as was written back then---was the assessment. The Neocons were unwilling to accept that, and they ‘recruited’ then DCI George Tenet to go along with them. Dick Cheney kept telling the agency analysts to “tell me what I want to hear, not what you think”.

 

Cheney fell in love with a source the agency named Curveball. That was not a random name; it reflected what the agency case officers thought of the guy. The guy sought money and a resettlement somewhere in the West, and made up lies about WMDs. Because his agency handlers did not believe him, he also went to other Western intel services and told the same lies. This came to the agency via liaison contacts, but with the identity known as the same guy, Curveball. Cheney called the multiple reports, despite being lies from the same guy, “corroboration”. Cheney knew, but ignored it.

 

A speech was written partly by a then-agency analyst for Colin Powell, to be delivered before the UNGA. Cheney had the report edited. The agency analysts re-edited it. Cheney erased their editing. Gen Powell was made a fool of at the UN.

 

Bush II and Cheney decided to attack Iraq, despite knowing what agency analysts and case officers in the field reported. Cheney also tried to link Saddam with 9-11, which was totally false and for which there was not only zero intelligence, but actually contrary intelligence. ObL wanted to take out Saddam, too, but first focused on attacking the US.

 

There was similar reporting on Afghanistan. The agency, having analysts who knew the history of that country, know full well it could not be changed. Destroy the al Qaeda bases and pressure the existing Afghan government to keep al Qaeda types out, was the best the agency thought the US could achieve. Case officers (the spooks on the front lines) as well as analysts put together a white paper arguing against anything other than a very short term commitment to Afghanistan, detailing in quite prescient terms what the result of a long term effort would be:failure and a return of the Taliban.  Bush II and the Neocons ignored the intelligence assessment.

 

The result: 20 wasted years in Afghanistan, almost as many wasted years in Iraq, 6000 US soldiers killed in the two wars, $4 trillion thrown away, a million dead Iraqis from the communal, tribal and sectarian violence that still hobbles the place, and more power and influence of Iran, along with hardliners in the Islamic world.

 

Trump will not only make the mistakes Bush II made, he will be even worse, because trump wants to weaponize the entire intel community, not only to have it tell him what he wants to hear, but also to use the capabilities of all parts of the IC against critics and political opponents. He has even stated this multiple times, as in “I am your retribution”.

 

Trump got hosed by Kim Jong-un during trump’s time as POTUS. Though Kim is a psychopath, he is clever. A few love letters and he had trump under total control. That allowed Kim to speed up his own nuke and missile programs,…..lots more enriched U235, Hwasong ICBM developments that now allow DPRK missiles to strike every part of the US, miniaturization of nukes, and nuke testing via supercomputer rather than any actual detonations. In the past, Kim and his father had to move slowly, fearing a reaction from the US. Under trump, it was no holds barred, and now South Korea, Japan, and even the US are in much greater danger than before trump. Give the fragile ego trump a little praise, and you can control him. Kim knows that. So does putin.

 

Foreign intelligence services, whether Five Eyes or other liaison services, will not cooperate with a US led by trump. They have seen how reckless and untrustworthy he is, not only while he was POTUS, but when trump stole thousands of highly classified documents and brought them to his country club. They will not risk their own clandestine assets or covert collection programs just so trump can expose them, as trump did with an Israeli penetration of Islamic terror groups during his Oval Office laugh-fest with Lavrov and Kislyak. The US will be less well informed, less alert, and less safe.

 

All that is what has intel professionals fearful of another trump term. None of trump’s goobers or sycophants are capable of running a professional intelligence community nor doing the work required to identify, target, recruit and handle clandestine assets. The US will be blind in an increasingly dangerous world.

And for the rest of the story.

https://www.brookings.edu/articles/9-11-and-the-reinvention-of-the-u-s-intelligence-community/

[Yellowtail]

On 3/7/2024 at 1:54 AM, heybruce said:

Yes or no to what?

 

You posted "Russia is absolutely a threat a big threat. But does he have resources (without China and Iran) for a big move against NATO? I don't think so, do you?"  

 

I explained why Russia doesn't need to make a big move; the salami slice approach is working.  Can you not see that my response makes your question irrelevant?  But if you must have an answer, I don't know and neither do you.  The assumption that China and Iran would not be involved is questionable, and Putin has repeatedly demonstrated poor judgment, possibly the result of poor information. 

I did not ask you what you know, I asked you what you thought. You seem to want to be perceived as a military export, yet waffle on a pretty simple question. 

 

On 3/7/2024 at 1:54 AM, heybruce said:

Trump has thrown nuclear deterrence into doubt by running his mouth without a filter.  You know, the quality Trump supporters stupidly think is a good thing.

"One of the presidents of a big country stood up and said, “Well, sir, if we don't pay and we’re attacked by Russia, will you protect us?” I said, “You didn’t pay, you’re delinquent?” He said, “Yes, let’s say that happened.” “No, I would not protect you. In fact, I would encourage them to do whatever the hell they want. You gotta pay. You gotta pay your bills.”"    https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2024/02/trump-rally-nato/677426/

How does this translate to Trump throwing nuclear deterrence into doubt? Do you not think it is in NATO's best interest to have the members meeting their financial commitments? 

 

Didn't some NATO members actually increase their spending during the Trump administration?

 

But as expected, the headline in the Trump-hating "Atlantic" hit-piece was: "Trump Encourages Putin to Attack NATO Members". which the article in no way supports but has you here regurgitating it as fact. 

 

On 3/7/2024 at 1:54 AM, heybruce said:

"In December 2019, then-U.S. President Donald Trump was asked whether he thought it was worth it to have “all those” U.S. troops stationed in South Korea.

“It could be debated. I could go either way,” Trump answered." l  https://www.voanews.com/a/as-trump-looms-south-koreans-mull-their-own-nukes/6848246.html

If you don't understand why having US troops on the ground in South Korea and Europe is America's most important symbol of commitment to defending those countries then you need to go back to school.

Of course, anyone that does not agree with you is stupid and needs to be sent for reeducation, yes? 

 

I support having US troops on the ground in South Korea and Europe. The article cherry-picks half of a sentence out of context out of what was likely a lengthy response, and then writes a whole article designed to make reader believe Trump wants to abandon South Korea, and here you are regurgitation it as fact.

On 3/7/2024 at 1:54 AM, heybruce said:

I don't see the nation blundering into crisis under Biden, but I see Republicans trying to make that happen.  By shooting down the Border bill endorsed by the Border Patrol Union Republicans are making the border situation and fentanyl crisis worse.

The border bill would have only further facilitated Biden's open boarder policies. That the union supported it means nothing. Do you think the union members had any idea what was in it or voted on it?

 

Why has Chuck Schumer refuse to even bring: "H.R. 2: Secure the Border Act of 2023" to the floor for a vote? Because he wants to keep the border open. Summary of H.R. 2: Secure the Border Act of 2023 - GovTrack.us

 

And it is horrendous that the aid for Ukraine, Israel and the boarder are tied together. These should be bought up and voted on separately, but as always, the only things that matter are reelection and more power. 

 

On 3/7/2024 at 1:54 AM, heybruce said:

"Yet only about 20% of lorries and less than 5% of cars are x-rayed as they enter America. The administration wants to increase that and send more agents to the border to curb both drug-trafficking and illegal immigration. (The two problems are quite distinct, Mr Mayorkas points out: the vast majority of drugs are intercepted at regular border crossings, not carried into America by undocumented migrants.) But last month Republicans in Congress killed a bipartisan bill that would have beefed up policing of the border, at the behest of Donald Trump, the presumptive Republican nominee for president."   https://www.economist.com/briefing/2024/02/29/americas-ten-year-old-fentanyl-epidemic-is-still-getting-worse

Lorries? Who's writing this? The article is behind a paywall. Claiming the bill was killed at "...the behest of Donald Trump..." is ridiculous. The bill was worse than nothing, was written secret, and would have died once it hit the floor. 

 

 

On 3/7/2024 at 1:54 AM, heybruce said:

Biden's plan to end the war in Ukraine is to give Ukraine the weapons it needs to defend itself.  I agree with that plan and want him to do more of it with fewer restrictions. 

I asked you what you thought Biden's end plan was, and you say Biden's plan it to continue funding it until the end. That's hilarious. What does the end/victory look like?

 

I was pleasantly surprised that you also see Biden as being too weak. 

 

On 3/7/2024 at 1:54 AM, heybruce said:

Trump's plan is to deny Ukraine these weapons, giving Putin another salami slice so he can then proceed to the next one.

What is your fantasy based on? The Trump administration started providing Ukraine with defensive weapons long before the conflict, weapons that the previous administration refused to provide. I think Trump also sanctioned construction of the Nord Stream 2 pipeline that Biden ultimately lifted. 

 

Has Ukraine not had the defensive weapons provided by the Trump Administration, Putin would have taken Kyiv in a week. 

On 3/7/2024 at 1:54 AM, heybruce said:

You yourself posted "I do not see him doing anything until he's done in Ukraine, but if he gets out of there, with some level of success, he will continue."  Trump seems to want to give Putin that success.

Are there any other questions?  Be specific, don't troll and claim I didn't answer some unstated question.

1. What is your claim that "Trump wants to give Putin that success." based on?

 

2. Why do you think that Trump demanding NATO members meet their financial obligations translates to Trump throwing nuclear deterrence into doubt?

 

3. Do think it is the United States and NATO's best interest to have NATO members meet their financial commitments? 

 

4. Why do you think at least some NATO members increase their spending significantly during the Trump administration?

 

5. How do you support your position that Trump wants to abandon South Korea?

 

6. Why do you think Biden reversed the Trump Administrations border polices, "Remain in Mexico" for example?

 

7. What does a victory in Ukraine look like to you? 

 

8. Why do you Chuck Schumer has refused to bring: "H.R. 2: Secure the Border Act of 2023" to the floor for a vote?

 

9. Why do you think Ukraine, Israel and the boarder were all are tied together by Chuck Schumer?

 

10. Do you think bills for Ukraine, Israel and the boarder should be brought and voted on separately? 

 

11. Do you agree the situation would likely be worse in Ukraine had the Trump Administration not provided them with defensive weapons that had been denied them under the previous administration? 

 

[heybruce]

6 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

I did not ask you what you know, I asked you what you thought. You seem to want to be perceived as a military export, yet waffle on a pretty simple question. 

 

How does this translate to Trump throwing nuclear deterrence into doubt? Do you not think it is in NATO's best interest to have the members meeting their financial commitments? 

 

Didn't some NATO members actually increase their spending during the Trump administration?

 

But as expected, the headline in the Trump-hating "Atlantic" hit-piece was: "Trump Encourages Putin to Attack NATO Members". which the article in no way supports but has you here regurgitating it as fact. 

 

Of course, anyone that does not agree with you is stupid and needs to be sent for reeducation, yes? 

 

I support having US troops on the ground in South Korea and Europe. The article cherry-picks half of a sentence out of context out of what was likely a lengthy response, and then writes a whole article designed to make reader believe Trump wants to abandon South Korea, and here you are regurgitation it as fact. 

The border bill would have only further facilitated Biden's open boarder policies. That the union supported it means nothing. Do you think the union members had any idea what was in it or voted on it?

 

Why has Chuck Schumer refuse to even bring: "H.R. 2: Secure the Border Act of 2023" to the floor for a vote? Because he wants to keep the border open. Summary of H.R. 2: Secure the Border Act of 2023 - GovTrack.us

 

And it is horrendous that the aid for Ukraine, Israel and the boarder are tied together. These should be bought up and voted on separately, but as always, the only things that matter are reelection and more power. 

 

Lorries? Who's writing this? The article is behind a paywall. Claiming the bill was killed at "...the behest of Donald Trump..." is ridiculous. The bill was worse than nothing, was written secret, and would have died once it hit the floor. 

 

 

I asked you what you thought Biden's end plan was, and you say Biden's plan it to continue funding it until the end. That's hilarious. What does the end/victory look like?

 

I was pleasantly surprised that you also see Biden as being too weak. 

 

What is your fantasy based on? The Trump administration started providing Ukraine with defensive weapons long before the conflict, weapons that the previous administration refused to provide. I think Trump also sanctioned construction of the Nord Stream 2 pipeline that Biden ultimately lifted. 

 

Has Ukraine not had the defensive weapons provided by the Trump Administration, Putin would have taken Kyiv in a week. 

1. What is your claim that "Trump wants to give Putin that success." based on?

 

2. Why do you think that Trump demanding NATO members meet their financial obligations translates to Trump throwing nuclear deterrence into doubt?

 

3. Do think it is the United States and NATO's best interest to have NATO members meet their financial commitments? 

 

4. Why do you think at least some NATO members increase their spending significantly during the Trump administration?

 

5. How do you support your position that Trump wants to abandon South Korea?

 

6. Why do you think Biden reversed the Trump Administrations border polices, "Remain in Mexico" for example?

 

7. What does a victory in Ukraine look like to you? 

 

8. Why do you Chuck Schumer has refused to bring: "H.R. 2: Secure the Border Act of 2023" to the floor for a vote?

 

9. Why do you think Ukraine, Israel and the boarder were all are tied together by Chuck Schumer?

 

10. Do you think bills for Ukraine, Israel and the boarder should be brought and voted on separately? 

 

11. Do you agree the situation would likely be worse in Ukraine had the Trump Administration not provided them with defensive weapons that had been denied them under the previous administration? 

 

A lot of nonsensical questions and deflections.

 

Defense treaties are not commercial transactions.  Every time Trump threatens to pull out of a treaty unless the other country pays more he's making it clear that America is available to the highest bidder.  You don't deter a nuclear war that way.  You negotiate disagreements behind closed doors, not on stage.  Of course Trump doesn't want to do anything if it doesn't put him on stage.

 

Lorrie is a common term.  You need to get out more. 

 

Do you agree that more people and equipment at the border would decrease illegal entries and smuggling?

 

"Of that, $700 million would go toward hiring of Custom and Border Protection officer and Border Patrol agent hiring, $500 million for Immigration and Customs Enforcement staffing, upwards of $4 billion for U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services to onboard more than 4,300 new asylum officers and $56 million for the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center to staff up to train all of those new employees."

 

"Our ports of entry have been understaffed for years and by adding more officers, CBP would be better equipped to stop shipments of fentanyl and reduce the need for temporary duty assignments to the southwest border ports,”  https://www.govexec.com/workforce/2024/02/hiring-and-pay-reforms-accompany-staffing-surges-bipartisan-border-deal/393918/

 

Regarding your questions:

 

1.  How do you think Trump plans to end the Ukraine war?  By politely asking Putin to pack up his things and leave Ukraine, or by denying Ukraine the weapons it needs to defend itself so it must make major concessions to Putin?  I think it's the latter, and that would definitely be a success for Putin. 

 

Remember you posted regarding Putin attacking Europe:

 

"I do not see him doing anything until he's done in Ukraine, but if he gets out of there, with some level of success, he will continue."

 

Do I really have to connect the dots for you?

 

2.  Addressed in the second paragraph of this reply.

 

3.  Yes, but increased spending now will not result in significant increases in military capabilities for years.  The US needs to remain a steadfast member of the alliances with no question that it will live up to all mutual defense provisions.

 

4.  Because they had less faith in America's willingness to live up to its obligations.

 

5.  Addressed in the second paragraph of this reply.

 

6.  Because it violated terms of international agreements regarding asylum seekers and it could no longer be justified after pandemic restrictions were lifted.

 

7.  Ukraine getting all of its territory back and reparations for the war.

 

8.  I'm sure sections 102 and 103 had something to do with it.  https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/118/hr2/summary

 

9.  Because combining many bills together has become standard practice in Congress.

 

10.  I think that would take far too long.

 

11.  Congress provided the defensive weapons.  Trump held them up.  https://www.npr.org/2019/12/06/785349739/why-the-trump-decision-to-delay-aid-to-ukraine-is-under-scrutiny

 

Now it's my turn:

 

1.  Do you think Trump would make it explicitly clear that America's "nuclear deterrent umbrella" covers all of NATO and our east Asia allies?

 

2.  If Putin launches a land war in Europe to reclaim the Baltic states and parts of Poland, will Trump fulfill America's NATO obligations and pull out all stops to push them back?

 

3.  If your answer to 1 and 2 is "Yes", do you think all our NATO and Asian allies would agree?

 

4.  If NATO and Asian allies don't trust Trump, do you think they will seek their own nuclear weapons?  Do you understand that nuclear proliferation is a bad thing?

 

5.  If China launched a pre-emptive strike against Asian countries developing nuclear weapons, what do you think Trump would do?

 

In order for deterrence to work, the US must be seen as a reliable ally.  Trump doesn't inspire confidence on that measure, and that's very dangerous.

 

[thaibeachlovers]

Perhaps those concerned about their own prospects when Trump wins should be investigating alternative countries in which to live. Thailand is a friendly option, though finding work may be a problem.

[Roo Island]

17 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Perhaps those concerned about their own prospects when Trump wins should be investigating alternative countries in which to live. Thailand is a friendly option, though finding work may be a problem.

I'm with a guy visiting from the US. Due to the political divide, he's seriously considering moving here. Sad identity politics is ruining the country.

[thaibeachlovers]

Just now, Roo Island said:

I'm with a guy visiting from the US. Due to the political divide, he's seriously considering moving here. Sad identity politics is ruining the country.

You don't say where "here" is, though I suspect Australia.

Is Australia any better than the US when it comes to politics and suchlike? I know they don't have the illegal immigrant thing like the US, as the boats policy sank that, and a very good thing too.

[earlinclaifornia]

9 minutes ago, Roo Island said:

I'm with a guy visiting from the US. Due to the political divide, he's seriously considering moving here. Sad identity politics is ruining the country.

When Trump came down that elevator and announced his plans I was out of there. Even stayed when he was voted out!