Capitol Hill Blue Forums Political Issues Politics In General Is it too soon to be talking 2020?

They lie enough to know not to trust them.

yellow cake comes to mind. agent curveball is another. Gulf of Tonkin, Church commission, Latin American fascist death squads badged as freedom fighters, etc etc. Whatever it takes to maintain empire.

Do you think intelligence agencies have been honest with the public or congress?

Do you think Gish Galloping is helping your argument?
I don't.
And I think that when it comes to career professionals in the intelligence agencies, there is a clear divide between the political operatives and the professionals, and that the professionals take their jobs seriously.
Sorry, I am not letting the perfect be the enemy of good, so I view our intel the way I view our military, and I don't intend to tar the entire apparatus with your broad brush, especially since you have already admitted in the past that you lack any ideas for solutions, nor do you see it as your shared responsibility either.

That makes you an armchair revolutionary of the very worst kind, interested only in tearing down the apparatus but not retooling it.

Police have done some terrible things in the past, extremely terrible, but I'm also not ready to do away with police either.

You sound a LOT like what I see and hear on RT every single day...a LOT.

Sure there is, but we never hear what the career professionals have to say, Just what the political operatives want us to hear. Actual intelligence ALWAYS goes through a political filter before we hear it.

Actually we did get to hear some of the professionals recently.
Sorry, I try to keep track of individuals, and I don't throw them all into one knee-jerk box.
I do actually trust James Mattis, I do actually trust Barry McCaffrey, even if they do not have a perfect record.
I do trust Russell Honore, I do trust Colonel Vindman.

I don't trust John Negroponte, I don't trust Porter Goss, or Gina Haspell. There's more but you get the point.

I love how you put words or intent in people’s mouths or arguments.

Distinction without a difference with regard to intelligence communities.

The results are the same.

Many people were speaking out about the sham on the intelligence in the run up to war, by the way. Many others of your 'honest' intell community did speak out. They were sidelined or ignored.

Biden believed in going to war in Iraq. Hence Biden has blood on his hands. Clinton did too, though liberals were canceling all objection to her as a 'vast right wing conspiracy' (convenient) or being dupes of Russia. Ranters here may recall their behavior here at the time. As though there could not be any ideological differences from her detractors to have a criticism of her career in politics. How lazy and convenient for them.

People have also been speaking out on the Russian hysteria, too. Same play. All critique has been dismissed as though anyone making them are dupes and russian assets or it devolves into some weird party loyalty, support the troops style framing.

The detractors, much like it was in the Iraq war run up, have been ignored while the rubes believe what their TV's tell them.

What's the saying? something about lies having wings while truth has pants or something?

Intelligence from whatever source when originally collected is what is known as raw intelligence. There’s also a rating scheme applied to the source in many different categories. Once assembled, analyst go through all the data coming up with their own interpretations of it. Which is handed further up the chain of command for further study and analyzing. It is then passed on to whomever is in charge from company commanders up to the JCS, the secretaries, etc. then on to the political leaders depending on what it is about. The need to know always taking precedence along with security clearances.

Most stay in classified channels going to the various agencies and their heads to draw their own conclusions and make a response if warranted. Depending on what it is about, the public will never know. Although there are instances such as the Cuban Missile crisis of 1962 in which the photo’s were publicized and the general public briefed. Some gets leaked for political reasons, not security reasons from the president to congressional officials and staffers which can cause harm to those involved and in the field. Even to the country.


Filtered yes. The general public gets to know very little as to what is going on. What they’re told is usually when something is over and then not very detailed. It’s been this way ever since I first went into the army back in 1966. The old motto, loose lips, sink ships still applies. I think one would be astounded to the amount of material that is still classified from WWII, Korea and Vietnam.

What the government tells you or the general public is very filtered and what you are told is what the government wants you to know for a variety of reasons.

So I'm guessing Madam Clinton had nothing to back up her claim that Tulsi Gabbard was a a Russian asset?

I dunno but I guess AOC is no longer welcome among your particular group of Lefties.

my particular group?

Dunno what your talking about. You'd have to expand a bit. Unless it's more mean girl flexing?