Jump to content

Intel Chiefs Contradict Trump on Global Threats


UT alum

Recommended Posts

CIA - Iran is in compliance with nuclear deal signed during Obama administration.

FBI - Russia still using social media platforms as a vehicle for weaponizing disinformation and spreading foreign influence in the United States.

NSA - ISIS still commands thousands of soldiers in Syria and Iraq

NSA - currently assesses that North Korea will continue to retain its WMD capabilities and it is unlikely to completely give up its nuclear capabilities

I listened to the head of each agency listed above make those statements.

Two hours of testimony and no mention of rationale for a wall, and 0 questions about need for wall in 2 hours of testimony.

Any thoughts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, UT alum said:

CIA - Iran is in compliance with nuclear deal signed during Obama administration.

FBI - Russia still using social media platforms as a vehicle for weaponizing disinformation and spreading foreign influence in the United States.

NSA - ISIS still commands thousands of soldiers in Syria and Iraq

NSA - currently assesses that North Korea will continue to retain its WMD capabilities and it is unlikely to completely give up its nuclear capabilities

I listened to the head of each agency listed above make those statements.

Two hours of testimony and no mention of rationale for a wall, and 0 questions about need for wall in 2 hours of testimony.

Any thoughts?

I did not see the testimony, nor have I heard anything that was said, so I can only ask questions.

In the two hours of testimony, did the CIA reiterate that the Iran nuclear deal gives Iran a path to legal ownership of nuclear weapons? Did they mention anything about the deal, like having to give Iran 30 days before inspections? Did they mention how bad of a deal it is for Israel, the U.S., and the rest of the world?

Did the FBI comment on how much money Russia was spending for spreading foreign influence in the United States? Is Russia spending more than the couple of thousand dollars like last election? Are they close to spending the millions of dollars that the Hillary campaign spent disseminating false information about a political rival? Did they talk about how much money the Obama administration spent trying to influence foreign elections?

Does the obvious even need mentioning? Does rationale for the wall even need to be debated?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, UT alum said:

Clapper and Brennan had no input into these reports. 

The Deep State is deep.  There are way more people involved than what is out now.  You had a high level FBI agent and his side piece actively trying to overthrow the govt.  How many more of those are out there that we don’t know about?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, PhatMack19 said:

The Deep State is deep.  There are way more people involved than what is out now.  You had a high level FBI agent and his side piece actively trying to overthrow the govt.  How many more of those are out there that we don’t know about?

Man, you sound like a 60’s hippie.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, UT alum said:

It’s useless if you can’t tell the difference between news and entertainment.

In other words, you can't provide proof.

It's sad that libs can't realize that someone can talk about current events very accurately AND still be entertaining. 

I guess I wouldn't care to listen to someone that constantly blew holes in my ideology either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, LumRaiderFan said:

It's sad that libs can't realize that someone can talk about current events very accurately AND still be entertaining. 

I guess I wouldn't care to listen to someone that constantly blew holes in my ideology either.

You mean talk about current events in a manner that supports your view of reality. The guy is a pox on civil discourse. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, stevenash said:

Please provide an example of  someone that you perceive to be a provider of civil discourse and authentic news without a political predilection.

Professional journalists. Not opinionists, on either end of the spectrum.

The only one I watch is Chuck Todd. He interviews people from all sides. I take his panelists with a grain of salt.

Eugene Robinson is a man whose opinions I respect. Sometimes even George Will.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Member Statistics

    45,953
    Total Members
    1,837
    Most Online
    jacobmartin
    Newest Member
    jacobmartin
    Joined


  • Posts

    • No doubt. It's definitely intriguing enough to watch how this all plays out...
    • We all know that each state has its own laws which can be very different, especially in endeavors like annexation or incorporation, so there is no telling what Louisiana law says. I don’t know but I doubt that there is a point of appeal for Baton Rouge to force St. George to be absorbed back into Baton Rouge by now giving them what they asked for years ago. “Oh, we lost? Well let’s just undo incorporation, ruled as legal by the Supreme Court (of LA)  by going back and giving them what they asked for”. There has to be a law allowing such an appeal. I think what I read about the lower court decisions which actually backed up Baton Rouge, they did not all rule that incorporation was illegal but that they did not think the city could have services up and running soon enough. So you have a court saying that sure you can split but only if we agree that you can provide services get enough. In Louisiana, who knows? I doubt that Texas has such a mechanism to allow a city to split, for example, could the west end of Beaumont say that they wish to make their own city against Beaumont’s objection? I doubt it. Certainly Beaumont could allow a city to be created as Port Arthur did with Bridge City and Taylor’s Landing. There is a huge difference in allowing and forcing which is what happened in Baton Rouge. Similar to the sometime discussed topic of Texas splitting off from the United States because they don’t like the way things are going, think if citizens in any city in the United States were allowed to create their own city, which could not be stopped by the parent city.  That could get interesting!! Don't like what is happening in the south side of Chicago? Just de-annex and create your own city!! Anyway, I thought that it is an interesting story when the capital city splits in half.   
    • Wasn't that 1st round loss last year? Also, during those previous 10 years I am pretty sure Jasper didn't go 2-58 in district play in the other 5 sports.
    • Ma'am, I don't think he said all Muslims were like that. If I'm reading this right, he's referencing the terrorist Muslims. You know, the ones who commit murder & have no regard for anyone who doesn't follow their jihadist beliefs...
    • Great playoff run, no doubt.  They did make the 3rd round(1 less) 4 of the previous 10 years, only one first round loss. 6 district championships and 4 second place.  The only 4 years Carthage was in the same district. So no, I'm not sure it does make sense.
  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...