I want to assure all of our service members that we take seriously any and all potential threats against U.S. military personnel. pic.twitter.com/Tcg3xzkZQ8— @EsperDoD (@EsperDoD) July 1, 2020
Zero Hedge: WaPo Admits 'Russian Bounties' Info "Deemed Sketchy" After Pentagon Says "No Corroborating Evidence"
Congressional leaders have demanded answers, and those answers have come in the form of multiple US intelligence agencies and chiefs essentially throwing cold water on the NY Times Russian bounties to kill American troops in Afghanistan story, as we've detailed.
We expect this "bombshell" will be very short-lived, perhaps being memory holed by the weekend, akin to the fate of other Russiagate-related 'anonymous sources say' type stories.
The Pentagon is the latest to say that DOD-wide there is currently "no corroborating evidence at this time to validate the recent allegations regarding malight activity by Russian personnel against US forces in Afghanistan," according to a late Tuesday evening statement by Defense Secretary Mark Esper.
Read more ....
WNU Editor: I also noticed earlier today the Washington Post quickly back-tracking on the Russian bounty story. I suspect that the sources the Washington Post uses are telling them that there is no real evidence tying Russia to these allegations. My prediction. This story is going to be buried by Monday for some other outrage. So why did the New York Times post this story a few days ago? As I said in an earlier post. This year is a US Presidential election year. Everything that is being reported today by the US media, or news stories that are ignored, is being done within that context.
Update: Here's Why the 'Russian Bounties' Story Is the New 'Russian Collusion' Hoax (Matt Margolis, PJ Media)
Sir--
ReplyDeletefact: this is what CIA has said:
CIA Director Gina Haspel, Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe and national security adviser Robert O’Brien each released statements Monday in which they condemned such information getting out to the public.
All three of the statements were similar in messaging, all declining to confirm the report itself, saying that the intelligence was still being assessed. The statements also mirrored one another due to the concerns they raised over leaks from top intelligence officials.
“We are still investigating the alleged interference referenced in media reporting and we will brief the President and Congressional leaders at the appropriate time,” Ratcliffe said Monday. “Unfortunately, the unauthorized disclosures now jeopardize our ability to find out the full story with respect to these allegations.”
what we have, then, is someone within intel has leaked the story and the NY Times got it. Wash Post still stays with what they have said and Zero hedge remains a right wing outfit with names anonymous, something that is ok for you there but not when no names given in NY Times
In a statement overnight, O’Brien said the intelligence didn’t rise to the level of informing the president, despite reports of the administration being aware of the bounties for months.
ReplyDelete“Nevertheless, the administration, including the National Security Council staff, have been preparing should the situation warrant action,” O’Brien said.
Despite O’Brien’s statement, the intelligence community found the bounty claims credible enough to include in a classified CIA intelligence document distributed to U.S. officials across the world, according to the Times.
O’Brien’s comments came after a day of shifting explanations from Trump and the White House. Though top officials said on Saturday Trump hadn’t been briefed, Trump tweeted Sunday night that “intel” had informed him the allegations were not “credible.” Yet by Monday, McEnany continued to insist the president hadn’t been briefed, even as briefings were being arranged for lawmakers.
I'm not a big Trump fan but OF COURSE this is an election year hit. The media has had a huge hard on for the Russian Boogeyman for years.
ReplyDeleteYou know its bad when your own media puts out more false and damaging propaganda than both Russia and China combined.
ReplyDeleteWNU, I know you're from Russia so you could probably offer your insights on this. The media and the Democrats attacked Sarah Palin in 2008 over her 'I could see Russia from Alaska' comments and attacking Mitt Romney in 2012 accusing of him of being stuck in the past trying to relive the Cold War. There was the whole Russia reset with Obama/Clinton as well. But then Trump gets elected and it's all "Russia bad" conspiracies since from the same media and Democrats who attacked people between 2008-2016 for peddling the Russia=bad stories.
ReplyDeleteNow the left looks down on Trump's voter base. Hicks in the sticks, rubes, dumb inbred red necks, etc. I think they have this stereotype that because the voters in flyover country are "stupid", but also overly patriotic, that if they scream "the Reds are coming / better dead than red / manchurian candidate" about Trump, that his voters will be stupid enough to turn around and abandon him in the election.
I really think all these Russian conspiracy theories stem from that condescending attitude from coastal urban Americans towards their flyover counterparts about their "stupid patriotism". At least that's my theory.
"Zero hedge[sic] still stays with what they have said Washington Post remains a left wing outfit with anonymous sources"
ReplyDeleteFTFY
YW Parrot!
Anon: the NY Times has a reputation to uphold. They would not give this story as a lede to be political. Now check the rep of Zero Hedge! (google)
ReplyDeleteOfficials in Afghanistan have announced the arrest of a number of businessmen who helped to transfer the Russian funds to the Taliban through a series of informal “hawala” arrangements. One of these men was found with over half a million dollars, but the nature of the system makes it difficult to determine how much money was transferred in total. These men are suspected of being just part of a ring that funneled money from Russia to Taliban fighters and other militants whose job wasn’t just to kill American soldiers, but to keep America entangled in Afghanistan, tying up large amounts of revenue and harming both American military capabilities and foreign policy.
The White House held a Monday morning intelligence briefing for Congress, by which they mean that selected Republicans who have expressed their undying support for Trump were brought in to be given their talking points on how to describe this scandal. Probably something, something, Benghazi, email. Possible Benghazi, email, Ukraine. Democrats, and even most Republicans, were excluded from this get together stage managed by former Trump-supporting Congressmen Mark Meadows and John Ratcliffe, who modeled for their former colleagues the perks of being the best … at being the worst.
The talking point that Meadows and Ratcliffe appear to be pushing is that there was a lot of doubt behind the intelligence suggesting Russia was paying to put a target on Americans. Enough doubt, apparently, that the appropriate level of followup was none at all. This runs absolutely counter to the evidence which has emerged to show that, not only where British officials warned of the Russians scheme, but Trump was personally briefed by John Bolton at a meeting created solely for the purpose of briefing Trump on this one item. The information was also included in a widely read internal intelligence newsletter sent out at the beginning of May.
Zero Hedge posts stories written by made up names...yet you object when NY Times gives names of those who write articles but do not give a leaked source name!
ReplyDeleteWho is Zero Hedge, finance blog that spread coronavirus misinformation - Business Insider
Fred still has not answered the question posed yesterday.
ReplyDeleteSuppose it is true. Suppose the Russians have offered bounties. What do you think we should do?
Be specific.
1.) Name the sanctions that we need to be added to the zillion others.
2.) Or, if sanctions are not enough, then say we must go to war or increase the DoD.
Remember increasing the DoD is anathema to all good liberals.
Fred you can copy and paste your answer. You do not have to think all by yourself. You can get an answer from a TPM so long as the talking point some our for #1 or #2.
Think of copying and pasting as a multiple guess test. Whatever you copy and paste just may be right. You may get lucky.
The newspaper formerly known as the New York Times...
ReplyDelete
ReplyDelete"Post calls “the most exclusive, and arguably most important, daily meeting in Washington” — the Presidential Daily Briefing (PDB) — warning his successor that without the daily intelligence brief, “you are flying blind.”
This coming from the same person who skipped more than half of his daily intelligence briefings in his first term. "
www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/obamas-hypocrisy-on-intelligence-briefings/2016/12/19/8b1fbed0-c5f4-11e6-bf4b-2c064d32a4bf_story.html
Former CIA Chief Of Staff On Whether President Trump Was Briefed On Russian Bounties
ReplyDeletechickens coming home to roost on this one!
all the name-calling does not alter a simple thing:
1. Trump knew and lied that he did not know
2. His staff kept the story from him and need to be fired
3. the story is very important and needed to be reported and those preparations were made in possible response, which tells us that the story real enough to be a serious threat to our forces.
4. Russia has done this before: they aided North Korea and the Chinese in the Korean War (google on this)
5. We need the heads of CIA and NSA to testify under closed doors.
6. we owe this to our military and anything less is policial on Trump's part
US media outlets say there is evidence a Russian military intelligence unit put out the alleged bounties on US soldiers last year - and the president was briefed about the matter. The New York Times also reports that militants are believed to have collected money from Russia as a result of successful attacks, but it's not clear which troop deaths are under suspicion.
ReplyDeletePresident Trump says he was never briefed and it's all a hoax.
Russia denies the claims and calls the reports fake news.
The Taliban rejects the allegation it took Russian cash to attack US soldiers.
Should Trump have known about this?
The White House has said there is still debate over how credible these reports are in the intelligence community, but it appears some senior officials knew about these allegations.
Intelligence reports can make it to the president even if they're unconfirmed - which they often are - and this one was also reportedly shared with allies, including the UK.
Why does it matter now?
It's destabilising as the US and Taliban are in the midst of negotiating a peace deal to end the 19-year war in Afghanistan.
This episode could also worsen US-Russia relations.
Why would Russia do this?
Experts say the tactic fits with Russia's goal of weakening America's global influence. It also wants to back the Taliban as it sees it as a possible bulwark against Islamist fundamentalism.US media outlets say there is evidence a Russian military intelligence unit put out the alleged bounties on US soldiers last year - and the president was briefed about the matter. The New York Times also reports that militants are believed to have collected money from Russia as a result of successful attacks, but it's not clear which troop deaths are under suspicion.
President Trump says he was never briefed and it's all a hoax.
Russia denies the claims and calls the reports fake news.
The Taliban rejects the allegation it took Russian cash to attack US soldiers.
Should Trump have known about this?
The White House has said there is still debate over how credible these reports are in the intelligence community, but it appears some senior officials knew about these allegations.
Intelligence reports can make it to the president even if they're unconfirmed - which they often are - and this one was also reportedly shared with allies, including the UK.
Why does it matter now?
It's destabilising as the US and Taliban are in the midst of negotiating a peace deal to end the 19-year war in Afghanistan.
This episode could also worsen US-Russia relations.
Why would Russia do this?
Experts say the tactic fits with Russia's goal of weakening America's global influence. It also wants to back the Taliban as it sees it as a possible bulwark against Islamist fundamentalism.
“The Taliban have been paid by Russian intelligence for attacks on U.S. forces—and on ISIS forces—in Afghanistan from 2014 up to the present.”
ReplyDelete— Mullah Manan Niazi
In the world of intelligence gathering, such a statement from such a figure would be worth noting, and just the kind of thing that could lead to what the Trump White House has called “inconclusive” reporting the Russian offer of bounties to kill Americans.
Mullah Manan Niazi was a very senior figure in the Taliban when they were in power, and also when they were driven into exile and underground after 2001. But since the death of Mullah Omar was made public in 2015, he has been a dissident and liable to be killed by the current Taliban leadership if it catches up with him. They have accused him of collaborating with the CIA and the Afghan government’s intelligence service, the National Directorate of Security (NDS), which he denies.
So, Niazi speaks as someone who knows the organization and its top people very well, but who also has an agenda very different from theirs, with his own reasons for confirming the bounty story, and he does not offer further specifics on that. But he does offer details about what he says are the longstanding ties between the Taliban and the Russians as well as the Iranians, and U.S. officials have been tracking those developments.
A U.S. intelligence report about Russian assistance to the Taliban has circulated on Capitol Hill and throughout the national security apparatus over the last several days. According to three individuals who have read or who are familiar with the report, the assessment is long and covers the span of several years, focusing generally on how Russia provides support, including financial assistance, to the Taliban. The report also touches on the Russian bounties first reported by The New York Times, though those who read the report say that data point is circumstantial and that the investigation is ongoing. Two individuals who spoke to The Daily Beast, though, said it is clear from the report that there’s an increased risk for U.S. troops in Afghanistan because of Russia’s behavior.
In important ways, this classified report mirrors an unclassified document produced last month by the Congressional Research Service which offered a crisp summation: “In the past two years, multiple U.S. commanders have warned of increased levels of assistance, and perhaps even material support for the Taliban from Russia and Iran, both of which cite IS [Islamic State, ISIS] presence in Afghanistan to justify their activities. Both nations were opposed to the Taliban government of the late 1990s, but reportedly see the Taliban as a useful point of leverage vis-a-vis the United States.”
And Fred blankets the blog at #:42, 3:512 & 3:53 with scathing copy and pastes that took every ounce of intellectual effort that he had. Sweat was pouring off his brow form the effort of CTRL-C and CTRL-V.
ReplyDeleteNot one of those reports said if the intel was "actionable".
You would think that someone who actually had been in intel would have caught that little item.
Maybe someone is not who they say they are?
He was a clerk.
DeleteAs the White House denies Trump was briefed about Russia placing bounties on US soldiers in Afghanistan, which CNN has confirmed was included in the written PDB this spring, the question of what the President knew and when has moved to center stage. And it brings Trump's aversion to hearing negative analysis about Russia into renewed focus.
ReplyDeleteMultiple former administration officials I spoke to for my upcoming book, "The Madman Theory: Trump Takes on the World," which will be published August 11 by Harper Collins, paint a picture of a President often unwilling to hear bad news about Russia.
[name calling is not a mature response but sign of childishness]
He was a clerk. But if you change jobs, don't you keep up with the old job a little from acquaintances or from reading the papers, reading with a little more interest and comprehension than the average reader?
ReplyDeleteI just do not see much of a spark there.
Yeah, but in his case academia kinda took over. He had dinner with some semi high Obama muckety mucks who stroked his ego.So now he imagines himself as some sort of Intel maven. I hear he still has patch cord burns on his hands. He's pretty typical of that lot.
DeleteI also think he was surprised by the presence and quality of Intel professionals here. A whole lot smarter than me.
DeleteClerk at 5:50 PM (6 o'clock high) lining up for another run.
ReplyDeleteLol!
Deletemove all bas
ReplyDeleteto india