Our president is up and tweeting this morning and of course disagreeing with the assessment from his intelligence chiefs again insisting his 'vision' of what's happening is the truth.
Intelligence chiefs are often wrong. Think Pearl Harbor. Think Iraq.
I was flabbergasted when the intelligence chief yesterday testified that the unguarded southern border is no danger to the country. Does he think that terrorists are stupid?
Is the new thinking from the white house trust but don't verify?
Our president is up and tweeting this morning and of course disagreeing with the assessment from his intelligence chiefs again insisting his 'vision' of what's happening is the truth. How does our president consistently just throw out the findings of his own people?
How often?Intelligence chiefs are often wrong.
Which politicians predicted the Pearl Harbor attack?Think Pearl Harbor.
Iirc, the USIC's NIE told us that Iraq was unlikely to attack the US in the foreseeable future and that they were not in cahoots with al Quaida.Think Iraq.
We did our best to invite the attack on pearl harbor and then hung out the general and admiral in charge out to dry. Roosevelt was looking for a way into the war, he could see what was happening in europe but the nationalists in america wanted nothing to do with 'their war'. We even moved our fleet from california to pearl harbor to antagonize the japanese into attacking us. We had also broken their codes well before the attack. What the executive branch knew and what the intelligence agencies knew, was not passed on to the two commanders on pearl harbor. Iraq was just a plain fiasco that our president and his people lied us into, that by now should be clear. What our intelligence agencies know and what the president decides to do are two very different things.
Not all intelligence sources are saying the same things with one voice. Trump is right not to be cast about from one assessment to another without considering all evidences and taking all reports under advisement. Media sources cherry-pick sources and reports they find useful in making the president look bad for their own nefarious reasons but they are wrong for taking that stupid and unethical route. Americans did not elect anti-Trump media hounds to run this country, they elected Trump to do it and he is doing a great job by comparison.
We moved our fleet to antagonize the Japanese?
And we did break their code.... And we knew attack was imminent. And that is about it. We assumed the attack would strike the bases in Asia.
Media sources? It was broadcast on television where anyone could watch am I not to believe my own ears and eyes?
We moved our fleet to antagonize the Japanese?
And we did break their code.... And we knew attack was imminent. And that is about it. We assumed the attack would strike the bases in Asia.
You beat me to it. Apparently that poster doesn't keep up with the news. Trump is pushing back on comments they made in public testimony.
But when you have no real argument and no real defense of Trump, "fake nooz media!" is always a good fallback. It doesn't work, but hey, some people may fall for it.
There are a number of folks on this site who believe that Turmp is the one politician who doesn't lie, a politician who can be trusted.Yea it's pretty amazing. The defense of trump is "well, I mean, he could be right. It's possible that literally everyone that has looked at this stuff and studied it is wrong and he's right."
Media sources? It was broadcast on television where anyone could watch am I not to believe my own ears and eyes?
Yea it's pretty amazing. The defense of trump is "well, I mean, he could be right. It's possible that literally everyone that has looked at this stuff and studied it is wrong and he's right."
My point exactly. Trump must handle a lot of state secrets and foreign affair matters in total confidence and privacy, unlike leftist spinners of bad conclusions hastily drawn from the flimsy superficial evidence they glean from non-essential sources.
Wrong as often as Trump?Intelligence chiefs are often wrong. Think Pearl Harbor. Think Iraq.
I was flabbergasted when the intelligence chief yesterday testified that the unguarded southern border is no danger to the country. Does he think that terrorists are stupid?
Non-essential sources? You just said the intelligence chiefs are non-essential sources! They publicly spoke out in opposition to the POTUS on areas of their expertise.
We've been told numerous times by people who were there that Trump does not read or even listen to his daily intel briefings. We're not talking about WH janitors.
Tell us how does he make his assessments? What is the basis for his foreign policy decisions? How is it that he really does know more than the generals, all the intel services, and everyone at the State Department?
If the professional opinions of the intel chiefs are going to be ignored, they should each follow in the footsteps of general Mattis and resign.
Intelligence chiefs are often wrong. Think Pearl Harbor. Think Iraq.
I was flabbergasted when the intelligence chief yesterday testified that the unguarded southern border is no danger to the country. Does he think that terrorists are stupid?
We did our best to invite the attack on pearl harbor and then hung out the general and admiral in charge out to dry. Roosevelt was looking for a way into the war, he could see what was happening in europe but the nationalists in america wanted nothing to do with 'their war'. We even moved our fleet from california to pearl harbor to antagonize the japanese into attacking us. We had also broken their codes well before the attack. What the executive branch knew and what the intelligence agencies knew, was not passed on to the two commanders on pearl harbor. Iraq was just a plain fiasco that our president and his people lied us into, that by now should be clear. What our intelligence agencies know and what the president decides to do are two very different things.
Not all intelligence sources are saying the same things with one voice. Trump is right not to be cast about from one assessment to another without considering all evidences and taking all reports under advisement. Media sources cherry-pick sources and reports they find useful in making the president look bad for their own nefarious reasons but they are wrong for taking that stupid and unethical route. Americans did not elect anti-Trump media hounds to run this country, they elected Trump to do it and he is doing a great job by comparison.
Some people consider 3800+ miles to be within antagonizing range.
Let me give you a hint. Peter Strzok was non-essential liar and deceiver and seditious Trump-hating devil, and he was just one of likely hundreds of non-essential lying devils in the corrupted American intelligence community.
Sigh ...
We moved our fleet to Pearl Harbor because relations with the Japanese had reached an all-time high in antagonism, mostly over steel. Something was expected, but not a sneak attack on that scale.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?