PDA

View Full Version : An Open Question to All Non-Believers of US National Intelligance



Cigar
01-04-2017, 06:45 PM
So tell us ALL where you're getting your National Intelligence from?

If you don't believe the Thousands and Thousands of NSC Professionals in The 17 Intelligance Communities, then "who" are the people you will believe?

resister
01-04-2017, 06:46 PM
Maybe when they provide proof instead of unfounded allegations.......?

Bob the Slob
01-04-2017, 06:49 PM
So tell us ALL where you're getting your National Intelligence from?

If you don't believe the Thousands and Thousands of NSC Professionals in The 17 Intelligance Communities, then "who" are the people you will believe?

How could anyone trust a pro-war "intelligence" factory who lied about WMDs in Iraq? We can't trust our corporate media.

Cigar
01-04-2017, 06:49 PM
Only a F'cking Moron would think The US National Security would publicly show it's hand to Russia.

But you can bet Trump will be told Friday, although he's a the biggest Moron of them all. So I holpe Kellyann will be Babysitting that day.

Bob the Slob
01-04-2017, 06:50 PM
Maybe when they provide proof instead of unfounded allegations.......?
Or use words like "we believe" Highly possible, more than likely....I agree...there's been no proof shown.

Cigar
01-04-2017, 06:51 PM
The Question is, then in who hands will you place The United States Security in, if not The current 17 Agencies.

resister
01-04-2017, 06:57 PM
Only a F'cking Moron would think The US National Security would publicly show it's hand to Russia.

.Kinda like the "dark one" telegraphing our military moves?

Cigar
01-04-2017, 06:59 PM
Or use words like "we believe" Highly possible, more than likely....I agree...there's been no proof shown.

Names ... I need Names

Cigar
01-04-2017, 07:00 PM
Kinda like the "dark one" telegraphing our military moves?

HE's leaving the Job with 70+% Approval, Doanald will never have that.

hanger4
01-04-2017, 07:00 PM
Only a F'cking Moron would think The US National Security would publicly show it's hand to Russia.

But you can bet Trump will be told Friday, although he's a the biggest Moron of them all. So I holpe Kellyann will be Babysitting that day.

They haven't even presented the evidence to the appropriate oversight committee's Cigar. WTF

MisterVeritis
01-04-2017, 07:00 PM
So tell us ALL where you're getting your National Intelligence from?

If you don't believe the Thousands and Thousands of NSC Professionals in The 17 Intelligance Communities, then "who" are the people you will believe?
Even when I was in that community I did not expect everything I produced to be believed.

Can you name the "17" members of the intelligence community? I know I have been letting this slide but this may be a teachable moment. Here is some help. http://mentalfloss.com/article/22076/16-members-us-intelligence-community

MisterVeritis
01-04-2017, 07:02 PM
Only a F'cking Moron would think The US National Security would publicly show it's hand to Russia.
You still don't understand how our government works, do you?

Cigar
01-04-2017, 07:03 PM
They haven't even presented the evidence to the appropriate oversight committee's Cigar. WTF

Are you on that Commity?

If not, then want reason you don't beleive the 17 prelim reports from the 17 Agencies?

Stop deflecting, I want the Name of The People you will believe.

MisterVeritis
01-04-2017, 07:03 PM
HE's leaving the Job with 70+% Approval, Doanald will never have that.
It may take a while for the truth to become known. They key point is Obama is leaving the job. We have hope again.

MisterVeritis
01-04-2017, 07:05 PM
Are you on that Commity?
If not, then want reason you don't beleive the 17 prelim reports from the 17 Agencies?
Stop deflecting, I want the Name of The People you will believe.
If the information is solid why hasn't the House been briefed?

Cigar
01-04-2017, 07:07 PM
Mission Accomplished ... you don't have any one or names.

Thanks for playing.

hanger4
01-04-2017, 07:11 PM
Are you on that Commity?

If not, then want reason you don't beleive the 17 prelim reports from the 17 Agencies?

Stop deflecting, I want the Name of The People you will believe.

Of course not Cigar, stop deflecting. The top members of the intelligence oversight committee's are cleared for that sort of information.

You really don't know how your government works, do you ??

MisterVeritis
01-04-2017, 07:12 PM
Mission Accomplished ... you don't have any one or names.
Thanks for playing.
You remain completely clueless. It is almost impossible yet you did it!

hanger4
01-04-2017, 07:13 PM
Mission Accomplished ... you don't have any one or names.

Thanks for playing.

The mission accomplished was thread fail.

Dangermouse
01-04-2017, 07:24 PM
Maybe when they provide proof instead of unfounded allegations.......?

Fail. The question was who DO you believe if not the 17 agencies?

hanger4
01-04-2017, 07:28 PM
Fail. The question was who DO you believe if not the 17 agencies?

And the question still remains why haven't they presented their evidence to the appropriate oversight committee's ??

Cigar
01-04-2017, 07:30 PM
Fail. The question was who DO you believe if not the 17 agencies?

They won't answer that question because it will expose their BS. They are expecting the 17 Agencies to spill the beans in public sone that The Russians can plug those Intel Holes.

Trust me, even after the Proofis given, they will still deny it anyway.

Just like Trump said, he can shoot someone in the middle of Times Square and his Supporter will still swallow his BS and ask for more.

Cigar
01-04-2017, 07:32 PM
And question still remains why haven't they presented their evidence to the appropriate oversight committee's ??

Start a Thread for that question, I started this one with my question.

MisterVeritis
01-04-2017, 07:55 PM
Fail. The question was who DO you believe if not the 17 agencies?
Just for fun what are the names of the 17 agencies?

hanger4
01-04-2017, 07:55 PM
Start a Thread for that question, I started this one with my question.

Your question has no validity. The case/evidence has yet to be presented to the appropriate oversight committee's.

hanger4
01-04-2017, 07:57 PM
They won't answer that question because it will expose their BS. They are expecting the 17 Agencies to spill the beans in public sone that The Russians can plug those Intel Holes.

Trust me, even after the Proofis given, they will still deny it anyway.

Just like Trump said, he can shoot someone in the middle of Times Square and his Supporter will still swallow his BS and ask for more.

The oversight committee's have the proper clearances Cigar. Please learn how your government works.

resister
01-04-2017, 07:57 PM
Your question has no validity. The case/evidence has yet to be presented to the appropriate oversight committee's.Bad faith?

hanger4
01-04-2017, 08:09 PM
Bad faith?

Naaaah, Cigar doesn't think things through to it's logical conclusion most times.

Crepitus
01-04-2017, 09:35 PM
So tell us ALL where you're getting your National Intelligence from?

If you don't believe the Thousands and Thousands of NSC Professionals in The 17 Intelligance Communities, then "who" are the people you will believe?

Why, Donald Trump of course.

Duh!

He knows more than the generals.

He's an expert on hacking.

His intelligence is "of the highest level".

Just ask him!

Private Pickle
01-04-2017, 09:38 PM
So tell us ALL where you're getting your National Intelligence from?

If you don't believe the Thousands and Thousands of NSC Professionals in The 17 Intelligance Communities, then "who" are the people you will believe?
What you're missing is that I'm not hearing all of those people. I'm hearing one or two people who take that information and do fuck all with it before feeding me a line that I'm supposed to gobble up in order to line up their agenda.

2017 bro. Time to start reading.

del
01-04-2017, 09:45 PM
The oversight committee's have the proper clearances Cigar. Please learn how your government works.

the oversight committees have no clearances, nor are the intelligence agencies required to report to them.

please learn how your govt works

https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/books-and-monographs/sharing-secrets-with-lawmakers-congress-as-a-user-of-intelligence/3.htm

Newpublius
01-04-2017, 10:23 PM
So tell us ALL where you're getting your National Intelligence from?

If you don't believe the Thousands and Thousands of NSC Professionals in The 17 Intelligance Communities, then "who" are the people you will believe?

What's funny is that the government has a credibility issue.

That's not my fucking fault.

Its their fault.

hanger4
01-04-2017, 10:29 PM
the oversight committees have no clearances, nor are the intelligence agencies required to report to them.

please learn how your govt works

https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/books-and-monographs/sharing-secrets-with-lawmakers-congress-as-a-user-of-intelligence/3.htm

"House members, beginning with the 104th Congress, do have to take a secrecy oath. Members of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence – the committee with oversight over intelligence agencies including the CIA and NSA – have a separate oath, commensurate with their unique access to sensitive information. Again, these oaths take the way of a public pledge, vice the arduous security-clearance process, complete with SF86, undertaken by the average security-cleared professional."

https://news.clearancejobs.com/2012/05/16/do-members-of-congress-have-security-clearances/

Never said they were required.

del
01-04-2017, 10:40 PM
"House members, beginning with the 104th Congress, do have to take a secrecy oath. Members of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence – the committee with oversight over intelligence agencies including the CIA and NSA – have a separate oath, commensurate with their unique access to sensitive information. Again, these oaths take the way of a public pledge, vice the arduous security-clearance process, complete with SF86, undertaken by the average security-cleared professional."

https://news.clearancejobs.com/2012/05/16/do-members-of-congress-have-security-clearances/

Never said they were required.

oaths aren't clearances; write it on your hand so you don't forget.

you've certainly implied repeatedly that if it wasn't reported to congress, it was meaningless.

try harder

FindersKeepers
01-05-2017, 04:03 AM
So tell us ALL where you're getting your National Intelligence from?

If you don't believe the Thousands and Thousands of NSC Professionals in The 17 Intelligance Communities, then "who" are the people you will believe?

Let me ask you this -- in a few weeks, when Trump appointees head those national intel agencies, will you be as quick to believe them as you are now?

FindersKeepers
01-05-2017, 04:12 AM
the oversight committees have no clearances, nor are the intelligence agencies required to report to them.

please learn how your govt works

https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/books-and-monographs/sharing-secrets-with-lawmakers-congress-as-a-user-of-intelligence/3.htm

From your link:




Congressional staffers who require access to intelligence in connection with their official duties receive security clearances based on background investigations conducted by the FBI. They are not required to take polygraphs. As a general rule, only committee staffers receive clearances; those in Members' personal offices do not.


By contrast, the other "national security" committees receive copies of the NID and the MID but must request copies of other finished intelligence (including NIEs) from lists that are regularly provided by the principal production agencies (CIA and DIA). These lists are keyed to the particular jurisdiction and level of clearance of each committee. At this juncture, none of these committees has electronic access to intelligence reporting.



Learn how your government works.

resister
01-05-2017, 04:18 AM
From your link:







Learn how your government works.
Forgot to add "derp"

hanger4
01-05-2017, 05:29 AM
oaths aren't clearances; write it on your hand so you don't forget.

you've certainly implied repeatedly that if it wasn't reported to congress, it was meaningless.

try harder

) If they refuse/don't take the oath they aren't cleared to receive the intelligence reports. Leave the sematics to others, you don't play it well.

2) I'm sorry allow me to clear that up. Without reporting to the appropriate oversight committee in a nonpartisan way, at least the ranking members, it is meaningless. Hope that clears things up a bit for you.

BTW welcome back. :thumbsup:

MisterVeritis
01-05-2017, 07:13 AM
the oversight committees have no clearances, nor are the intelligence agencies required to report to them.
please learn how your govt works
https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/books-and-monographs/sharing-secrets-with-lawmakers-congress-as-a-user-of-intelligence/3.htm
Of course, they are cleared. And yes, the intelligence community entities are subject to their oversight. Select committees have subpoena power. And Congress controls their budgets and manpower.

Bethere
01-05-2017, 12:53 PM
Let me ask you this -- in a few weeks, when Trump appointees head those national intel agencies, will you be as quick to believe them as you are now?

Defend, defend, defend!

Bethere
01-05-2017, 12:54 PM
Of course, they are cleared. And yes, the intelligence community entities are subject to their oversight. Select committees have subpoena power. And Congress controls their budgets and manpower.

Subpoena power isn't the same thing as clearance. I thought you knew this stuff?

Bethere
01-05-2017, 12:55 PM
From your link:







Learn how your government works.

Attack, attack, attack!

FindersKeepers
01-05-2017, 01:49 PM
Attack, attack, attack!

On a troll-roll this fine day, Bethere?

FindersKeepers
01-05-2017, 01:49 PM
Defend, defend, defend!

On a troll-roll this fine day, Bethere?

MisterVeritis
01-05-2017, 01:51 PM
Of course, they are cleared. And yes, the intelligence community entities are subject to their oversight. Select committees have subpoena power. And Congress controls their budgets and manpower.

Subpoena power isn't the same thing as clearance. I thought you knew this stuff?
Do you need things spoon fed to you?

1) Of course, they are cleared.
2) And yes, the intelligence community entities are subject to their oversight. Select committees have subpoena power. And Congress controls their budgets and manpower.
Better hun?

Ethereal
01-05-2017, 01:53 PM
US intelligence...

http://www.commondreams.org/sites/default/files/imce-images/colin-powell-makes-his-pr-007.jpg

Bethere
01-05-2017, 02:04 PM
On a troll-roll this fine day, Bethere?
Making that call is above your pay grade.

Bethere
01-05-2017, 02:05 PM
Of course, they are cleared. And yes, the intelligence community entities are subject to their oversight. Select committees have subpoena power. And Congress controls their budgets and manpower.

Do you need things spoon fed to you?

1) Of course, they are cleared.
2) And yes, the intelligence community entities are subject to their oversight. Select committees have subpoena power. And Congress controls their budgets and manpower.
Better hun?

Take it from a former committee staffer that they are not the same thing.

FindersKeepers
01-05-2017, 02:07 PM
Making that call is above your pay grade.

It was a question.

You, my dear, just confirmed it.

Good times.

MisterVeritis
01-05-2017, 02:09 PM
Take it from a former committee staffer that they are not the same thing.
Are you intentionally obtuse?

Bethere
01-05-2017, 02:16 PM
It was a question.

You, my dear, just confirmed it.

Good times.

Never speak on my behalf, Beloved.

Bethere
01-05-2017, 02:19 PM
Are you intentionally obtuse?

No, I am obviously speaking from experience. You can pretend to know this stuff already, or you can learn.

I pretended that you knew what you were talking about concerning hacking the grid. The least you could do would be to return the courtesy.

FindersKeepers
01-05-2017, 02:19 PM
Never speak on my behalf, Beloved.

You spoke on your own behalf. I just added a much-needed dose of clarity.

It's all good.

Ethereal
01-05-2017, 02:22 PM
Never speak on my behalf, Beloved.
You couldn't handle her, son.

Bethere
01-05-2017, 02:22 PM
You spoke on your own behalf. I just added a much-needed dose of clarity.

It's all good.

Don't add "clarity" and then pretend it was something that I actually said.

MisterVeritis
01-05-2017, 02:23 PM
No, I am obviously speaking from experience. You can pretend to know this stuff already, or you can learn.
I pretended that you knew what you were talking about concerning hacking the grid. The least you could do would be to return the courtesy.
The right answer was, "Yes MisterVeritis, I am intentionally obtuse. I know you did not say being cleared and having subpoena power are the same things. But I am a troll. It is what I do."

As far as networks go, I was a network engineer for a couple of years and a CISSP for five. I moved on to systems engineering, then gave up the CISSP. I won't mention too much about the book that covered the electrical grid vulnerabilities. I continue to value my privacy.

Bethere
01-05-2017, 02:25 PM
You couldn't handle her, son.

Lol.

Ethereal
01-05-2017, 02:26 PM
Lol.
Exactly.

Bethere
01-05-2017, 02:27 PM
The right answer was, "Yes MisterVeritis, I am intentionally obtuse. I know you did not say being cleared and having subpoena power are the same things. But I am a troll. It is what I do."

As far as networks go, I was a network engineer for a couple of years and a CISSP for five. I moved on to systems engineering, then gave up the CISSP. I won't mention too much about the book that covered the electrical grid vulnerabilities. I continue to value my privacy.
You, finderskeepers, and ethereal?
Three on one? I like my odds.

There are more conservatives talking with me now than there have been all week chatting on the serious side.

What's that all about, great one?

FindersKeepers
01-05-2017, 02:27 PM
Don't add "clarity" and then pretend it was something that I actually said.

This conversation has become boring. I'm going shopping. You'll have to talk to yourself until I return. Try to behave.

MisterVeritis
01-05-2017, 02:28 PM
There are more conservatives talking with me now then there have been all week chatting on the serious side.
What's that all about, great one?
You began as a subtle troll. But no longer.

birddog
01-05-2017, 02:40 PM
HE's leaving the Job with 70+% Approval, Doanald will never have that.

That's a lie, or a skewed poll.

Bethere
01-05-2017, 02:58 PM
You began as a subtle troll. But no longer.

Rather than a troll, I am one of a handful of posters here at tPF who actually attracts posters. I am an asset.

You might--ha, ha--argue the point, but I bet 25% of your posting is either directly to me, or as a participant in one of my epic threads.

hanger4
01-05-2017, 03:01 PM
Rather than a troll, I am one of a handful of posters here at tPF who actually attracts posters. I am an asset.

Train wreaks always attract onlookers. :rofl:

Don
01-05-2017, 03:32 PM
President to intel head..."I believe that the Serbs are responsible for the deaths of perhaps 100,000 or more innocent Albanians who they have buried in mass graves." If the intel head says "absolutely sir you are 100% correct and now all we have to do is get the media on our side and we can intervene on behalf of the innocent Albanians who should have their own state." But if the intel head were to say "Mr. president, there is no evidence that what you believe is what is happening. Its true there are bad feelings between the two sides that were allowed to come out after the break up of the USSR but its pretty much a two way street with hard core Serbs on one side and Albanian narco-terrorists on the other side. The two sides have probably murdered about 7500 each and they probably are buried in mass graves. Definitely not something that rises to the level of our intervening, not to mention that it would be unconstitutional." If that intel head had said that he would be replaced by someone that fit the presidents belief. As it turned out in this case the second opinion of the "intel head" turned out to be the truth and in consequence we went in and killed about 7500 Serbs and destroyed much of their infrastructure.

suds00
01-05-2017, 05:31 PM
of course thesse are the same people who supported w's war effort.spies are not supposed to divulge everything.that's their job and it's a dangerous one.who would trump replace them with?

MisterVeritis
01-05-2017, 05:31 PM
Rather than a troll, I am one of a handful of posters here at tPF who actually attracts posters. I am an asset.

You might--ha, ha--argue the point, but I bet 25% of your posting is either directly to me, or as a participant in one of my epic threads.
But still a troll.

Bethere
01-05-2017, 05:46 PM
But still a troll.

Rule 2:

Belittling members will not be tolerated.

Docthehun
01-05-2017, 06:29 PM
Train wreaks always attract onlookers. :rofl:

He rests his case.

Subdermal
01-05-2017, 06:29 PM
Defend, defend, defend!

The first three letters are correct. The rest? Not so much.

DEFlect.

Docthehun
01-05-2017, 06:37 PM
It seems to me we've generally forgotten rule number one in this discussion. We don't go beyond, "need to know" and that will apply to the incoming administration as well. People who are generally distrusting are often the perfect job fit and unfortunately from time to time, communications between teammates sometimes breaks down. Overall, the agencies get fairly high marks from me.

hanger4
01-05-2017, 06:44 PM
It seems to me we've generally forgotten rule number one in this discussion. We don't go beyond, "need to know" and that will apply to the incoming administration as well. People who are generally distrusting are often the perfect job fit and unfortunately from time to time, communications between teammates sometimes breaks down. Overall, the agencies get fairly high marks from me.

"the agencies get fairly high marks from me"

In this instance not from me because instead of going to the appropriate oversight committee's they anonymously sourced to WaPo and the NYT's. Immediate red flages.

Docthehun
01-05-2017, 06:49 PM
"the agencies get fairly high marks from me"

In this instance not from me because instead of going to the appropriate oversight committee's they anonymously sourced to WaPo and the NYT's. Immediate red flages.

That's all part of it too; like it or not. Personally, I don't know how comfortable I'd be sharing information with the President-elect. He talks too much as is, to suit me.

Trish
01-05-2017, 06:52 PM
Ugh....I had to read thru 3 pages of silliness and gave up figuring out what the conversation had covered so far. If I'm repeating or rehashing information that has already been discussed I apologize.

Hopefully my comments are aligned with what the seeder wanted.

I watched today's committee hearing on Foreign Cyber Threats. It was interesting and informative with the standard political grandstanding from both parties. I'm anxious to read more about what the Intelligence community has found next week when they release the non confidential version. Just catching up with the news this evening. Did I hear correct that it has been reported that our intelligence has identified the hackers that fed wikileaks the information on behalf of the Russian government?

Subdermal
01-05-2017, 08:00 PM
That's all part of it too; like it or not.

It's part of it..says who? Enabler boys like you?


Personally, I don't know how comfortable I'd be sharing information with the President-elect. He talks too much as is, to suit me.

It didn't have to be shared with the PEOTUS. It should have been shared with the House and Senate Intelligence Committees.

Punting/equivocating with your claim of "that's all part of it too" is unacceptable. It's NOT.

del
01-05-2017, 08:06 PM
From your link:







Learn how your government works.
from my link


All Members of Congress have access to intelligence by virtue of their elected positions. They do not receive security clearances per se.

staffers aren't committee members

learn how the english language works

hanger4
01-05-2017, 08:34 PM
He rests his case.

You are correct, I did.

MisterVeritis
01-05-2017, 09:52 PM
Rule 2:

Belittling members will not be tolerated.
Still...a... troll.

Chris
01-05-2017, 11:26 PM
Rather than a troll, I am one of a handful of posters here at tPF who actually attracts posters. I am an asset.

You might--ha, ha--argue the point, but I bet 25% of your posting is either directly to me, or as a participant in one of my epic threads.


But still a troll.


Rule 2:

Belittling members will not be tolerated.



You both need to stop attacking each other. Put each other on ignore. Stop disrupting threads. Meanwhile, TBed.

ripmeister
01-05-2017, 11:40 PM
Ugh....I had to read thru 3 pages of silliness and gave up figuring out what the conversation had covered so far. If I'm repeating or rehashing information that has already been discussed I apologize.

Hopefully my comments are aligned with what the seeder wanted.

I watched today's committee hearing on Foreign Cyber Threats. It was interesting and informative with the standard political grandstanding from both parties. I'm anxious to read more about what the Intelligence community has found next week when they release the non confidential version. Just catching up with the news this evening. Did I hear correct that it has been reported that our intelligence has identified the hackers that fed wikileaks the information on behalf of the Russian government?
Yes. They referred to having identified those who gave the info to Wkileaks. Whether the are the hackers or no I'm not sure but they were all part of the same apparatus supported by the Russians as Clapper said at the highest levels.

Hal Jordan
01-06-2017, 02:24 AM
Rule 2:

Belittling members will not be tolerated.

If you feel a rule has been broken, don't respond to it. Report it and let the mods handle it.

Hal Jordan
01-06-2017, 02:26 AM
I'm sorry, I hadn't gotten to the mod action when I posted.

Subdermal
01-06-2017, 07:22 AM
Yes. They referred to having identified those who gave the info to Wkileaks. Whether the are the hackers or no I'm not sure but they were all part of the same apparatus supported by the Russians as Clapper said at the highest levels.
But you don't know that. You have no idea, at all.

Docthehun
01-06-2017, 07:52 AM
It's part of it..says who? Enabler boys like you?



It didn't have to be shared with the PEOTUS. It should have been shared with the House and Senate Intelligence Committees.

Punting/equivocating with your claim of "that's all part of it too" is unacceptable. It's NOT.

Greetings Mr. Happy and Happy New Year. Good to see it got kicked off on the right foot.

Subdermal
01-06-2017, 07:56 AM
Greetings Mr. Happy and Happy New Year. Good to see it got kicked off on the right foot.

Am I supposed to be happy when you say stupid things? Are you happy that it gives you an opportunity to deflect instead of address my rebuttal?

Docthehun
01-06-2017, 08:01 AM
Yes. They referred to having identified those who gave the info to Wkileaks. Whether the are the hackers or no I'm not sure but they were all part of the same apparatus supported by the Russians as Clapper said at the highest levels.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/u-intel-report-identifies-russians-gave-emails-wikileaks-020036818.html

Cigar
01-06-2017, 08:20 AM
Am I supposed to be happy when you say stupid things? Are you happy that it gives you an opportunity to deflect instead of address my rebuttal? Subdermal


http://editorialcartoonists.com/cartoons/AnderN/2017/AnderN20170106_low.jpg

Bob the Slob
01-06-2017, 12:42 PM
@Subdermal (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1758)


http://editorialcartoonists.com/cartoons/AnderN/2017/AnderN20170106_low.jpg

Certainly you can't deny WMDs in Iraq and the lies we were told. Maybe you had no bone in that fight, but many Americans lost family members either in the war or in the lack of care and PTSD.

ripmeister
01-06-2017, 01:48 PM
But you don't know that. You have no idea, at all.

Correct. I'm simply repeating what was said in the hearing.

donttread
01-06-2017, 03:41 PM
So tell us ALL where you're getting your National Intelligence from?

If you don't believe the Thousands and Thousands of NSC Professionals in The 17 Intelligance Communities, then "who" are the people you will believe?

I believe in observation. How do you trust agencies that have lied and spied to and on you? You would like to believe that because we call these people professionals they are capable and honest to the American people. But in fact they are trained in the art of lying , half truths and disinformation. Do you really think they turn that off for the American people? C'mon man!

Cigar
01-07-2017, 09:30 AM
So it looks like the NAME(s) you people couldn't come up with; was DICK CHENEY and The BUSH Administration.

They were the ones who LIED to you. It wasn't Intellegence community that went to The UN and declared that Lie ....

Sorry if this documented Fact upsets anyone's delicate feelings ... and my Mission was to PROVE you people didn't know where to get your Inteelegence from and I PROVED it! One again that was my MISSION and I was Proven Correct and that was my ACCOMPLISHMENT. Like it or not.

:grin: So if you want to infrat me for proving a point and proving you wrong ... do it. I don't give a F'ck.

Chris
01-07-2017, 09:34 AM
So it looks like the NAME(s) you people couldn't come up with; was DICK CHENEY and The BUSH Administration.

They were the ones who LIED to you. It wasn't Intellegence community that went to The UN and declared that Lie ....

Sorry if this documented Fact upsets anyone's delicate feelings ... and my Mission was to PROVE you people didn't know where to get your Inteelegence from and I PROVED it! One again that was my MISSION and I was Proven Correct and that was my ACCOMPLISHMENT. Like it or not.

:grin: So if you want to infrat me for proving a point and proving you wrong ... do it. I don't give a F'ck.



But wasn't it the intelligence community who gave the neocons possibilities they believed a grave danger?


(If your only purpose is to prove people wrong that's kind of superficial.)

Cigar
01-07-2017, 10:02 AM
http://citizenagenda.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Mission_Accomplished.jpg

https://youtu.be/0Y4axQyE8Aw (https://youtu.be/0Y4axQyE8Aw)https://youtu.be/oMus6T0aemI

Cigar
01-07-2017, 10:05 AM
I Welcome any Factual Links to refute .... :grin:

Chris
01-07-2017, 10:05 AM
Oh, thought you wanted to discuss Cheney and the neocons.

Cigar
01-07-2017, 10:23 AM
Oh, thought you wanted to discuss Cheney and the neocons.

So you are just going to pretend that video isn't about Bush / Cheney / and The Neocons?

I bet you can't even try looking at the Video without denying it as any truth.

Have a nice Weekend.

Trish
01-07-2017, 10:30 AM
I believe in observation. How do you trust agencies that have lied and spied to and on you? You would like to believe that because we call these people professionals they are capable and honest to the American people. But in fact they are trained in the art of lying , half truths and disinformation. Do you really think they turn that off for the American people? C'mon man!
I definitely think you have a point. I agree that they have and continue to keep things from the American people. So the question for me comes down to who do I mistrust more. Who does it benefit if the country implodes as we seem to be in the process of doing. This allegiance with Russia is very disturbing to me. I don't see how this anti American movement by some will benefit our country in the long run. I'm very nervous that we're only making ourselves more vulnerable by refusing to believe anything our government says.

Chris
01-07-2017, 10:44 AM
So you are just going to pretend that video isn't about Bush / Cheney / and The Neocons?

I bet you can't even try looking at the Video without denying it as any truth.

Have a nice Weekend.

Maddow's opinion is not fact.

I'm basing my opinion on memory of the time. I disagree with the Iraq Wars, start to now, but don't think there were lies presented.

Bo-4
01-07-2017, 12:31 PM
So tell us ALL where you're getting your National Intelligence from?

If you don't believe the Thousands and Thousands of NSC Professionals in The 17 Intelligance Communities, then "who" are the people you will believe?

They get it from Comrade Trumpf of course ...

He taught them many things that they didn't know yesterday! :grin:

Trump met with CIA Director John Brennan, FBI Director James Comey and other officials at his New York offices. He says of the officials, “I really like those people a lot” and he believes they also learned from the discussion.

Cigar
01-07-2017, 12:41 PM
Maddow's opinion is not fact.

I'm basing my opinion on memory of the time. I disagree with the Iraq Wars, start to now, but don't think there were lies presented.

You do what a Narator is ... ? :huh:

If you don't want to believe the people who are talking, that's your choice. But I'm betting their investigative reporters are a lot closer to the facts than your Memory.

Cannons Front
01-09-2017, 07:24 AM
So tell us ALL where you're getting your National Intelligence from?

If you don't believe the Thousands and Thousands of NSC Professionals in The 17 Intelligance Communities, then "who" are the people you will believe?

I just gotta ask..... can you name the 17 you speak of?

There are only 16 that I know of.......

By the way of those 16, 1 does not collect any of it's own intel, 5 would have very little input if any at all to this issue, 5 more are DOD so again not really their main focus.

Cannons Front
01-10-2017, 11:02 AM
Guess the truth was too much to ask for.......

Ivan88
01-10-2017, 04:31 PM
The "intelligence" gurus have been lying about most stuff for many decades including their support for some spectacular lies such as the "magic bullet" lie, "Gulf of Tonkin" lie, "pan cake theory" lie, "Israelis are our friends" lie, "Iraq, Syria, Yugoslavia, Libya, Somalia, Iran are our enemies" lies etc.

Since they are habitual liars, go ahead and believe them now. You will get exactly what you want. Lies.