The Intelligence Community - Champion of Democracy

Post Reply
User avatar
Seabass
Posts: 7339
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2011 7:32 pm
About me: Pluviophile
Location: Covidiocracy
Contact:

Re: The Intelligence Community - Champion of Democracy

Post by Seabass » Fri Aug 17, 2018 6:02 pm

"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." —Voltaire
"They want to take away your hamburgers. This is what Stalin dreamt about but never achieved." —Sebastian Gorka

User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 14978
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I am the grammar snob about whom your mother warned you.
Location: The Of Color Side of the Moon
Contact:

Re: The Intelligence Community - Champion of Democracy

Post by Forty Two » Fri Aug 17, 2018 6:57 pm

Seabass wrote:
Thu Aug 16, 2018 10:52 pm
What a goddamn farce.
Trigger Warning!!!1! :
Trump's military parade is now estimated to cost $92 million – $80 million more than earlier estimate
President Donald Trump's military parade is estimated to cost $92 million, according to a U.S. defense official with firsthand knowledge of the assessment.
An earlier estimate pegged the cost at $12 million.
The parade is scheduled to take place in the nation's capital on Nov. 10 and will feature armored vehicles, aircraft flyovers and period uniforms.
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/08/16/trump-m ... mated.html

President Donald Trump's military parade this fall is shaping up to cost $80 million more than initially estimated.

The Department of Defense and its interagency partners have updated their perspective cost estimates for the parade, according to a U.S. defense official with firsthand knowledge of the assessment. The official spoke on the condition of anonymity.

The parade, slated for Nov. 10, is estimated to cost $92 million, the official said. The figure consists of $50 million from the Pentagon and $42 million from interagency partners such as the Department of Homeland Security. An initial estimate last month pegged the prospective cost for the parade at $12 million.

A Pentagon spokesman said in an email to CNBC that the Defense Department expects to make an announcement soon, but he would not comment further. The White House referred questions to the Defense Department.

The $92 million cost estimate includes security, transportation of parade assets, aircraft, as well as temporary duty for troops. The official also noted that while the size and scope of the military parade can still shift, the plans currently include approximately eight tanks, as well as other armored vehicles, including Bradleys, Strykers and M113s.

The official also said that experts put to rest concerns about whether the Abrams tank, which weighs just shy of 70 tons, would ruin infrastructure in Washington. Their analysis found that, because of the vehicle's distributed weight and track pads, the streets of the nation's capital would not be compromised.

The parade is also expected to include helicopter, fighter jet, transport aircraft as well as historical military plane flyovers. Troops in period uniforms representing the past, present and future forces will march in the parade, as well.

Inspiration from France
The ceremony is said to be largely inspired by Trump's front-row seat at France's Bastille Day military parade in Paris.

In September, Trump met with French President Emmanuel Macron and recalled how much he enjoyed watching the parade. "It was a tremendous day, and to a large extent because of what I witnessed, we may do something like that on July 4 in Washington down Pennsylvania Avenue," Trump said.

"We're going to have to try to top it, but we have a lot of planes going over and a lot of military might, and it was really a beautiful thing to see, and representatives from different wars and different uniforms," he added.

The U.S. has not held a major military parade in Washington since 1991 to mark the end of Operation Desert Storm. That parade reportedly cost approximately $8 million and was paid for with about $3 million in government funds and the rest with private donations.

The $92 million figure dwarfs the $12 million estimate that was first reported by CNN last month. As noted at the time, the military parade was expected to cost as much as the "tremendously expensive" bilateral military exercise that Trump swiftly canceled with South Korea in the wake of the historic Singapore summit.

"We save a fortune by not doing war games, as long as we are negotiating in good faith – which both sides are!" Trump tweeted after meeting North Korean leader Kim Jong Un in Singapore.

After meeting with the reclusive leader from the North to negotiate a nuclear deal, Trump said: "I think it's inappropriate to be having war games. No. 1, we save money. A lot. And No. 2, it really is something that I think they [North Korea] very much appreciated." Trump also said that flying U.S. Air Force bombers in regional training missions is another drain on resources.

Trump's move falls out of step with the Pentagon, which has maintained that the joint exercises are routine, purely defensive and vital to maintaining readiness on the Korean Peninsula.

There are currently 28,500 U.S. troops stationed in South Korea, a legacy of the Korean War, which ended in 1953 in an armistice that left the two Koreas technically still at war.
Gotta agree with you there. We do not need a military parade. I vote to cancel it.
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar

User avatar
Seabass
Posts: 7339
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2011 7:32 pm
About me: Pluviophile
Location: Covidiocracy
Contact:

Re: The Intelligence Community - Champion of Democracy

Post by Seabass » Fri Aug 17, 2018 7:07 pm



"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." —Voltaire
"They want to take away your hamburgers. This is what Stalin dreamt about but never achieved." —Sebastian Gorka

User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 14978
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I am the grammar snob about whom your mother warned you.
Location: The Of Color Side of the Moon
Contact:

Re: The Intelligence Community - Champion of Democracy

Post by Forty Two » Fri Aug 17, 2018 7:24 pm

Seabass wrote:
Fri Aug 17, 2018 6:02 pm
Why? Did he place listening devices in Senators' chambers too? Did he perjury himself before Congress too?

He should have had them revoked when he used his platform for political partisanship by calling the President a traitor. He declared that the President committed high crimes and misdemeanors. Under the Constitution, “Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.” “Enemies” are nations with whom we are at war (whether declared or open). We're not at war with Russia, and Russia has not been designated by the President or Congress to be an enemy state. There are few impediments to doing business with Russia, or traveling to Russia - we even share a space program, where many launches have been done over the years through partnership with Russia.

Brennan doesn't fucking make US policy, and neither does the CIA or our vaunted "intelligence agencies." They could come up with a report that says that France is itching to invade the US and is planning a massive cyber attack on the US - the report would say "we have all this evidence, that we can't show you because of sources and methods and such...but we have it...and it's our "moderate to high confidence" that France is coming for us..." And, as the intelligence agencies work for and advise the President on stuff, the President decides what he trusts and doesn't trust, and what he thinks is persuasive, and what Executive policy will be. Congress does the same - they can meet with the CIA or other folks and have national security meetings and pass policy pronouncements, sanctions, laws, prohibitions and even declare war.

It's not treason for them not to take X action in response to intelligence reports. Plenty of times, political leaders have let serious things go rather than respond to them, because overall national policy demanded it. That's because the elected leaders make policy, not the military, and not the intelligence community.

So, Brennan might think the evidence is ironclad that Russia is an enemy of the US, and that for Trump to suggest that Putin wasn't responsible for X, Y or Z, is "treasonous." Well, good. That's his view of it. But, it's not fucking treason for the President to adopt a policy different from what John fucking Brennan wants. Fuck him.

And, this guy is liar - he lied to the American people by lying to Congress, under oath. A few years ago, there was a big faction on the left side of the spectrum to fire the fucker, and even prosecute him for his actions. Now it's a big fucking problem to revoke his security clearance? No no. He's out. And, yes, if Obama was President and, say, Porter Goss started saying that Obama was "treasonous" for his Iran policy -- I'd say revoke his fucking clearance too. Oppose the President's policy, but the President doesn't have to keep some guy who's engaging in partisan attacks on the security clearance rolls which gives access to Executive Branch business (which is the branch the President runs).

Former intelligence and law enforcement officials commonly retain their security clearances in order to ensure institutional continuity and in the event their expertise proves useful to their successors. If the current administration doesn't want to deal with Brennan in that way, then revoking his clearance is appropriate.

A bunch of previous heads of intelligence agencies have signed a letter stating that it was inappropriate to remove his clearance. it's important to recognize that the those same guys said "there are those of us who believe that he [Brennan] is acting inconsistent with the stature of a former director," - so some of those guys also oppose Brennan's behavior. But, they think revoking the clearance was not an appropriate move regardless. Well, the President doesn't want to deal with the guy. That's the decision. It's not a first amendment issue. It's an employment issue.
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar

User avatar
Seabass
Posts: 7339
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2011 7:32 pm
About me: Pluviophile
Location: Covidiocracy
Contact:

Re: The Intelligence Community - Champion of Democracy

Post by Seabass » Fri Aug 17, 2018 7:39 pm

Forty Two wrote:
Fri Aug 17, 2018 7:24 pm
Seabass wrote:
Fri Aug 17, 2018 6:02 pm
Why? Did he place listening devices in Senators' chambers too? Did he perjury himself before Congress too?

He should have had them revoked when he used his platform for political partisanship by calling the President a traitor. He declared that the President committed high crimes and misdemeanors. Under the Constitution, “Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.” “Enemies” are nations with whom we are at war (whether declared or open). We're not at war with Russia, and Russia has not been designated by the President or Congress to be an enemy state. There are few impediments to doing business with Russia, or traveling to Russia - we even share a space program, where many launches have been done over the years through partnership with Russia.

Brennan doesn't fucking make US policy, and neither does the CIA or our vaunted "intelligence agencies." They could come up with a report that says that France is itching to invade the US and is planning a massive cyber attack on the US - the report would say "we have all this evidence, that we can't show you because of sources and methods and such...but we have it...and it's our "moderate to high confidence" that France is coming for us..." And, as the intelligence agencies work for and advise the President on stuff, the President decides what he trusts and doesn't trust, and what he thinks is persuasive, and what Executive policy will be. Congress does the same - they can meet with the CIA or other folks and have national security meetings and pass policy pronouncements, sanctions, laws, prohibitions and even declare war.

It's not treason for them not to take X action in response to intelligence reports. Plenty of times, political leaders have let serious things go rather than respond to them, because overall national policy demanded it. That's because the elected leaders make policy, not the military, and not the intelligence community.

So, Brennan might think the evidence is ironclad that Russia is an enemy of the US, and that for Trump to suggest that Putin wasn't responsible for X, Y or Z, is "treasonous." Well, good. That's his view of it. But, it's not fucking treason for the President to adopt a policy different from what John fucking Brennan wants. Fuck him.

And, this guy is liar - he lied to the American people by lying to Congress, under oath. A few years ago, there was a big faction on the left side of the spectrum to fire the fucker, and even prosecute him for his actions. Now it's a big fucking problem to revoke his security clearance? No no. He's out. And, yes, if Obama was President and, say, Porter Goss started saying that Obama was "treasonous" for his Iran policy -- I'd say revoke his fucking clearance too. Oppose the President's policy, but the President doesn't have to keep some guy who's engaging in partisan attacks on the security clearance rolls which gives access to Executive Branch business (which is the branch the President runs).

Former intelligence and law enforcement officials commonly retain their security clearances in order to ensure institutional continuity and in the event their expertise proves useful to their successors. If the current administration doesn't want to deal with Brennan in that way, then revoking his clearance is appropriate.

A bunch of previous heads of intelligence agencies have signed a letter stating that it was inappropriate to remove his clearance. it's important to recognize that the those same guys said "there are those of us who believe that he [Brennan] is acting inconsistent with the stature of a former director," - so some of those guys also oppose Brennan's behavior. But, they think revoking the clearance was not an appropriate move regardless. Well, the President doesn't want to deal with the guy. That's the decision. It's not a first amendment issue. It's an employment issue.
"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." —Voltaire
"They want to take away your hamburgers. This is what Stalin dreamt about but never achieved." —Sebastian Gorka

User avatar
Joe
Posts: 4978
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2017 1:10 am
Location: The Hovel under the Mountain
Contact:

Re: The Intelligence Community - Champion of Democracy

Post by Joe » Sat Aug 18, 2018 4:06 am

Forty Two wrote:
Fri Aug 17, 2018 7:24 pm
Seabass wrote:
Fri Aug 17, 2018 6:02 pm
Why? Did he place listening devices in Senators' chambers too? Did he perjury himself before Congress too?

He should have had them revoked when he used his platform for political partisanship by calling the President a traitor. He declared that the President committed high crimes and misdemeanors. Under the Constitution, “Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.” “Enemies” are nations with whom we are at war (whether declared or open). We're not at war with Russia, and Russia has not been designated by the President or Congress to be an enemy state. There are few impediments to doing business with Russia, or traveling to Russia - we even share a space program, where many launches have been done over the years through partnership with Russia.

Brennan doesn't fucking make US policy, and neither does the CIA or our vaunted "intelligence agencies." They could come up with a report that says that France is itching to invade the US and is planning a massive cyber attack on the US - the report would say "we have all this evidence, that we can't show you because of sources and methods and such...but we have it...and it's our "moderate to high confidence" that France is coming for us..." And, as the intelligence agencies work for and advise the President on stuff, the President decides what he trusts and doesn't trust, and what he thinks is persuasive, and what Executive policy will be. Congress does the same - they can meet with the CIA or other folks and have national security meetings and pass policy pronouncements, sanctions, laws, prohibitions and even declare war.

It's not treason for them not to take X action in response to intelligence reports. Plenty of times, political leaders have let serious things go rather than respond to them, because overall national policy demanded it. That's because the elected leaders make policy, not the military, and not the intelligence community.

So, Brennan might think the evidence is ironclad that Russia is an enemy of the US, and that for Trump to suggest that Putin wasn't responsible for X, Y or Z, is "treasonous." Well, good. That's his view of it. But, it's not fucking treason for the President to adopt a policy different from what John fucking Brennan wants. Fuck him.

And, this guy is liar - he lied to the American people by lying to Congress, under oath. A few years ago, there was a big faction on the left side of the spectrum to fire the fucker, and even prosecute him for his actions. Now it's a big fucking problem to revoke his security clearance? No no. He's out. And, yes, if Obama was President and, say, Porter Goss started saying that Obama was "treasonous" for his Iran policy -- I'd say revoke his fucking clearance too. Oppose the President's policy, but the President doesn't have to keep some guy who's engaging in partisan attacks on the security clearance rolls which gives access to Executive Branch business (which is the branch the President runs).

Former intelligence and law enforcement officials commonly retain their security clearances in order to ensure institutional continuity and in the event their expertise proves useful to their successors. If the current administration doesn't want to deal with Brennan in that way, then revoking his clearance is appropriate.

A bunch of previous heads of intelligence agencies have signed a letter stating that it was inappropriate to remove his clearance. it's important to recognize that the those same guys said "there are those of us who believe that he [Brennan] is acting inconsistent with the stature of a former director," - so some of those guys also oppose Brennan's behavior. But, they think revoking the clearance was not an appropriate move regardless. Well, the President doesn't want to deal with the guy. That's the decision. It's not a first amendment issue. It's an employment issue.


Irellevant ad hominem.

Trump's response was inappropriate and unbecoming his office. The President should not act like a petulant little bitch when criticised. He should quietly have had the IRS audit Brennan for the last seven years.

Did we learn nothing from Tricky Dick? :lay:
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe." - Albert Einstein
"Wisdom requires a flexible mind." - Dan Carlin
"If you vote for idiots, idiots will run the country." - Dr. Kori Schake

User avatar
Seabass
Posts: 7339
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2011 7:32 pm
About me: Pluviophile
Location: Covidiocracy
Contact:

Re: The Intelligence Community - Champion of Democracy

Post by Seabass » Sun Aug 19, 2018 9:32 pm

"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." —Voltaire
"They want to take away your hamburgers. This is what Stalin dreamt about but never achieved." —Sebastian Gorka

User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 14978
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I am the grammar snob about whom your mother warned you.
Location: The Of Color Side of the Moon
Contact:

Re: The Intelligence Community - Champion of Democracy

Post by Forty Two » Tue Aug 21, 2018 2:49 pm

A lot of hyperbole, and no proof or examples.

He doesn't respect career bureaucrats? Good!

He's enthralled to Vladimir Putin? US policy does not reflect that enthrallment.

These are serious allegations, but it's political bullshit.

He alleges Trump is a "danger to the Republic?" How? Not a single concrete example. "This man and his henchmen and henchwomen..." lol.

CNN just publishing more political propaganda. This guy says foxnews was assaulting the constitution, the constitutional order, and the rule of law? How? It's a media outlet. Even if it publishes only BS, that doesn't assault the constitution, constitutional order or rule of law.

Total unsubstantiated nonsense.
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 29 guests