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

    46,202
    Total Members
    1,837
    Most Online
    CHSFalcon
    Newest Member
    CHSFalcon
    Joined


×
×
  • Create New...