Iambiguous-
Same old stuff. I am going to cut off the lines we have gotten into since I keep meeting the same patterns. So, reset from zero. We will meet again in new spots and from here on out I will use the shorthand set out below. Should you actually respond and appear to have read what I wrote, I will then respond normally. Otherwise… shorthand
SAOAR: Shifting away onus and responsibility.
NIST: Narcissistic Illogical Shift of Topic. Treating something as a failed solution to your core problems and/or bringing up your core topic as if it is a response when it is a change of topic.
RR: Redundant Request. That is requests for things already done which led nowhere.
SCMR: Self-congratulatory mind reading claims
Okay, it’s settled then. We move on to others.
Never thought I’d be resurrecting this one.
But consider…
washingtonpost.com/politics … -response/
[b]'President Trump’s long, aspirational, tortured relationship with Russia and its president, Vladimir Putin, entered one of its most controversial chapters this weekend. The New York Times first reported — with The Washington Post and others following up — that U.S. intelligence has assessed that a Russian military spy unit offered bounties to Taliban-linked fighters in Afghanistan to kill coalition troops, including American ones, and that there was intense debate within the U.S. intelligence community about how to respond as far back as late March. The Post further reported Sunday that the bounties have indeed been linked to U.S. troop deaths.
'Three months later, the Trump administration still hasn’t responded. In the intervening period, Trump has continued to describe Russia and Putin as friends of the United States, has sent humanitarian aid to Russia and has continued to push for its inclusion into the Group of Seven summit.
'The potential scandal here is readily apparent: the idea that a president and an administration would do nothing about an antagonistic foreign power funding the killing of Americans. '[/b]
Too early to tell how far this will go, but it certainly brings us back to the problematic relationship between Putin and Trump.
Hell, we might even see the “pee tape” resurrected again. After all, Putin seems to be dangling something incriminating over Trump’s head. Why not that? Would it really surprise [let alone shock] anyone?
Only partially, and dimunitively, as a cover for a major realization: It’s about the substantial gains within Trump’s policy, not to display evident disarray roaming those opinionated, who are driven by their own agenda, bereft in an ominous lack of ideology.
That is: some one has to venture into the credible world, that is closer to chaos , which at this time is inestimable.
The philosophical vacuum left by the fallen USSR-USA detente, is trying to be filled by some real measure of a new world order, which is primarily responsive toward some quality of acceptance.
nytimes.com/2020/06/30/us/p … e=Homepage
[b]‘The intercepts bolstered the findings gleaned from the interrogations, helping reduce an earlier disagreement among intelligence analysts and agencies over the reliability of the detainees. The disclosures further undercut White House officials’ claim that the intelligence was too uncertain to brief President Trump. In fact, the information was provided to him in his daily written brief in late February, two officials have said.’
'Afghan officials this week described a sequence of events that dovetails with the account of the intelligence. They said that several businessmen who transfer money through the informal “hawala” system were arrested in Afghanistan over the past six months and are suspected of being part of a ring of middlemen who operated between the Russian intelligence agency, known as the G.R.U., and Taliban-linked militants. '[/b]
Of course Trump has left us with the impression that he does not necessarily read all the daily briefings. Thus allowing him to pick and choose the ones he actually did read. It really comes down to whether or not it can be established that he was aware of the intelligence. And the extent to which the intelligence itself can be proven.
Trump haters of course are hoping like hell that both can be established.
Indeed, if they are, how will Trump wiggle out of that?
And then of course the even murkier truths embedded in whatever one’s own rendition of the “deep state” is. The part that is ever and always a manifestation of political economy. Trumps is part of ours, Putin is part of theirs.
The “whole truth” that mere citizens [like us] are never privy to.
It’s either a reference to which economy is closer to the truth, the political or the social/psychological, hm- Freudian?
through a probable offering of a glean of hope for a negotiated insight into the swamp
or, that the media it’self is prevy to infer an unremarked continuation of what popular opinion relegates to , as just another myth, albeit merely an expediently inverted one.
Then this part: washingtonpost.com/opinions … as-troops/
[b]'When the report came out that the United States had intelligence that the Russians were paying bounties to the Taliban for killing U.S. troops and that the White House had not decided what to do about it, President Trump tweeted: “Nobody briefed or told me, [Vice President] Pence, or Chief of Staff [Mark Meadows] about the so-called attacks on our troops.”
‘Wrong answer, Mr. President. The fact that you or your staff were not “briefed" on this critical intelligence does not excuse the White House for its failure to take action to defend our troops. The answer is not “nobody briefed or told me.” The answer is: What is the United States going to do about it?’[/b]
In other words, suppose it is established that Trump was not aware of the intelligence, but it turns out that the intelligence itself is established to be true. That Putin did put bounties on coalition forces. Including Americans.
What will Trump do? Or, if Putin does have in his possession some damaging information about him, not do?
edit:
Jennifer Rubin WP
[b]'The latest Russia scandal illustrates the point. According to the New York Times, Trump did receive intelligence in his daily briefing about the bounty that Russia put on U.S. troops: “The intelligence was included months ago in Mr. Trump’s President’s Daily Brief document — a compilation of the government’s latest secrets and best insights about foreign policy and national security that is prepared for him to read. One of the officials said the item appeared in Mr. Trump’s brief in late February; the other cited Feb. 27, specifically.” (Trump and the White House have denied he was briefed on the matter.)
‘The Associated Press also reports that the White House knew in 2019 that “Russia was secretly offering bounties to the Taliban for the deaths of Americans, a full year earlier than has been previously reported” and that Trump was briefed once by former national security adviser John Bolton in March 2019 and again by his successor, Robert O’Brien (who denies doing so)’.[/b]
&if, that intelligence be compromised?
???
nytimes.com/2020/06/30/opin … e=Homepage
Susan Rice OpEd
[b]'Here’s what should have happened. Had I, as national security adviser, received even “raw” reporting that Russia was paying to kill U.S. service members, I would have walked straight into the Oval Office to brief the president.
'Contrary to the spin-masters in the White House today, I would not have waited until we had absolute certainty. I would have said, “Mr. President, I want to make sure you are aware that we have troubling reporting that Russia is paying the Taliban to kill our forces in Afghanistan. I will work with the intelligence community to ensure the information is solid. In the meantime, I will convene the national security team to get you some options for how to respond to this apparent major escalation in Russia’s hostile actions.”
'If later the president decided, as Mr. Trump did, that he wanted to talk with President Vladimir Putin of Russia at least six times over the next several weeks and invite him to join the Group of 7 summit over the objections of our allies, I would have thrown a red flag: “Mr. President, I want to remind you that we believe the Russians are killing American soldiers. This is not the time to hand Putin an olive branch. It’s the time to punish him.”
'This is what would have happened in any prior administration of either political party.
‘That it apparently did not is deeply troubling and raises myriad questions. If Mr. Trump was told about Russian actions, why did he not respond? If he was not told, why not? Are his top advisers utterly incompetent? Are they too scared to deliver bad news to Mr. Trump, particularly about Russia? Is Mr. Trump running a rogue foreign policy utterly divorced from U.S. national interests? If so, why?’[/b]
Finally…
‘What must we conclude from all this? At best, our commander in chief is utterly derelict in his duties, presiding over a dangerously dysfunctional national security process that is putting our country and those who wear its uniform at great risk. At worst, the White House is being run by liars and wimps catering to a tyrannical president who is actively advancing our arch adversary’s nefarious interests.’
Note to conservatives:
This is clearly the liberal spin. But, seriously, why do you suppose Trump acts as he does in regard to Putin?
The following is an inter alia objective presentation, which has not much re-presentational value, except where the ’ Ali’s or parts of the summary are interpreted as coming from the same, or, identical sources.
Other than that, it may not give credence to any follow up to the question as to the why’s of the mechanics of Russian-U.S. relations, because of the increasing awareness of the incurred problems in reference to intelligence parameters.
The attack on intelligence by Trump, correlates with the role that Putin played in the Communist KGB, and the non personability of an appearent attack on CIA and FBI assets, have uncertain but relevant tie ins of why the recognizance of relationships have become muted.
The next comment is merely a subset, that may upend the patent need to understand.
This is why , material dialectics have almost negatively reversed rationale upon which reductive ideology should have memorialized it’s primary source.
The old detante, as well as the echoes of the material dialectic, have not been reduced sufficiently to an epoch, which could absolve either a practical, or an ideal representation of sufficient leadership power-relations, to satisfy reasonable dialogue, which could avoid compromising intelligent appraisals of reasonable objectives, that can transcend a reversal of an ideal to and through a pragmatic approach - to ascertain a sustainable balance of power; through the will of variable authority as represented currently.
The intelligences of both , of Russia and the US can not at the moment transcend new normative states
of affairs, hence the reverse trajectory of the executive roles can not clearly be specified.
Technology preempts reasonable grounds between majority and minority models.
There is the problem of differential intelligence, both: forwardly and backwardly designed, to make sense of unilaterally overlapping designs on authority.
As a consequence, not too much should or could be done to read too much into developing international relations at the moment.
This is exceedingly, an early blueprint, of which, the only focus of interplay that is certainly significant, that come between a reasonable balance of power, suffices in the pragmagical assumption if a non transcendental model of objectively reduced synthesis, from the supposed universal standard, as proposed on pragmatic basis, to the earlier framework, manifested by nationally identifiable predterminates.
That struggle, has superseded, reversely, any ’ existential struggle’, which has been patently been negated, by proponents of existentially priotorized assumptions, and which gave credence to the structurally nominal consequences that are still hanging in the balance.
Again, the idea is formed from an exiistential reduction from nominalism to the forming of such, that would give rationale to ‘exit’ from a ’ No Exit’ situation, that could give rise to an appearent need to form ulterior channels of representation to the will, to overcome repression.
And finally, as a note of apology, to Iambiguous, I wrote the above to remind myself of the search for the answer You pose, in terms for me to be able to seek reference within my own search for sources, and not meant to give definitive answers as to the reduced patent idea of the answers which could be given , as to why the personslly react and understand the underlying conditions which they are obliged to deal with, before forming the states of mind under lying underlying their respective modus operandi.
Thanks ahead for the allowance You or anyone may make in furtherance of required conditions.
nytimes.com/2020/07/12/opin … e=Homepage
[b]'Did President Trump know about U.S. intelligence community assessments that the Russians had offered bounties to the Taliban for attacks against U.S. and coalition forces in Afghanistan? He hasn’t so far offered a direct answer but instead shifting, manipulative responses.
That is itself troubling. It is also troubling that he has not condemned even the possibility of such Russian aggression.'[/b]
Remember when this story was generating big bold headlines? About two weeks ago. Now it seems to have just wafted away.
So, will we ever know if 1] Putin pursued this agenda in Afghanistan and 2] what Trump knew about it and when he knew it.
Then this part:
[b]But let’s step back and set aside the question of Russian bounties for a moment. For years, Russia has provided material and financial assistance to the Taliban, with what was surely the intent of supporting attacks against troops from the United States and coalition forces. Was the president aware of that?
I can answer that question: Yes, he was most certainly aware of Russian assistance to the Taliban. Despite that knowledge, he chose to do nothing.[/b]
Of course this sort of thing is part and parcel of the true nature of American foreign policy. To sustain what is deemed to be in the interest of Wall Street. That’s why Russia in Afghanistan and China in Hong Kong can pursue policies that many find appalling and yet nothing is done to counter them. It’s all about sustaining the global economy in order to further the interest of the rich and powerful. Both ours and theirs. And here Trump and Biden are interchangeable
Nihilism in practice, and not just discussed philosophically here.
Agreed, and it should become appearent by now, that both parties to compromise need to acknowledge contextual relations, which may use a lack of credibility on one side toward another.
That unconscious on one hand and conscious ones on the other, add another layer of complexity, that of politically feigned theatrics can overcome the actual modus operandi, within which a faux-middle of the road appears , as if it was resultant on credible dialectical reaffirmation, rather then a result of a impromptu revision to expedite a ’ coverup’.
Appears bad for Q45, but in fact where political expediency crosses with correctness- shades of nominal meaning may clearly be redefined in toto.