Thread: Russia offered cash for British and American soldiers to be killed in Afghanistan

^^What sort of lunatic official would put their name to the claim, whether it were a 'supposedly' major story or not?

Especially with this President at the helm? He doesn't just 'shoot the messenger', he wants it hung, drawn and quartered.

Originally Posted by kmart

Not much difference between that type of reporting and a State mouthpiece, a la Russia / China, etc. really.

Not much difference between the New York Times and, say, RT?

Really?

Interesting question toward the end of this piece.
Trump claims he didn't know about this. The question is where's his outrage that he didn't know about this.

Another interesting question is why's he throwing doubt on the intelligence without looking carefully at it. Seems like he's siding with his buddy putin again.
What an asshole.

Donald Trump was given a written briefing months ago about intelligence suggesting Russia offered bounties for attacks on US forces in Afghanistan, multiple US media have reported on Monday night. The president said on Sunday he was not told of the allegations because the information was not “credible”.

The New York Times quoted two sources as saying details were included in a daily intelligence briefing the president received in late February. CNN said an official with direct knowledge told them it was included in the briefing – a written document – briefing “sometime in the spring”.


Senior White House officials were aware as far back as early 2019 and the intelligence assessment was included in at least one of the president’s written daily briefings, the Associated Press reported, according to multiple officials.


Trump is said to prefer oral briefings several times a week rather than to read the daily written document prepared for US presidents.


The reports emerged late on Monday, after the White House briefed Republican lawmakers on the intelligence assessment. In an unusual step, Democratic lawmakers were not included in the initial briefing, which was conducted by the national security adviser, the director of national intelligence and the White House chief of staff.


Later on Monday a new planwas revealed and Congressman Steny Hoyer, the No 2 Democrat in the House, said a number of leading Democrats would be briefed at the White House on Tuesday at 8am.


Trump has publicly attacked the strength of the intelligence about the alleged bounty program. An initial report on the program last week by the New York Times, which has since been widely corroborated, raised the question of why the United States had not taken action in response to the suspected targeting of US soldiers.


Trump claimed on Sunday that he had never been briefed on the intelligence assessment. Later that day he said that intelligence officials told him the threat was not “credible”.


But Trump was contradicted in the White House briefing room on Monday by the press secretary, Kayleigh McEnany, who said that views about the veracity of the intelligence were mixed within the intelligence community.


“There is no consensus within the intelligence community on these allegations, and in effect there are dissenting opinions from some in the intelligence community with regard to the veracity of what’s being reported, and the veracity of the underlying allegations continues to be evaluated,” McEnany said.


Susan Hennessey, executive editor of the Lawfare website at the Brookings Institution, replied on Twitter: “This smells like the White House trying to mislead the public.


“It is common for different intelligence agencies to attach different degrees of confidence based on the manner on underlying intel; that isn’t the same as there being disagreement over whether something happened,” Hennessey wrote.


“Maybe there really is a disagreement between agencies on whether this happened at all. But there is strong consensus among the reporting and the language the White House is using sure seems designed to obfuscate.”


The national security council spokesman, John Ullyot, told the Washington Post that “the veracity of the underlying allegations continue to be evaluated,” while the CIA, state department and defense department all declined comment.


The Post reported on Monday that the bounty program was believed to have resulted in deaths of US troops. Top Republican members on the House armed services and foreign affairs committees were briefed on Monday by the White House.


Congresswoman Katherine Clark, the vice-chair of the Democratic caucus, questioned Trump’s reaction to having purportedly been left in the dark about the bounty program. “The president is saying that he did not know of this, but where’s the outrage from him, that he didn’t know about this?” Clark told Fox news. “Where is his questioning and demands for information?”


Dmitry Peskov, spokesman for Russia’s President Vladimir Putin, denied on Monday that such a bounty program existed. “You know, maybe I can say it’s a little bit rude but this is 100% bullshit,” Peskov told NBC News’ Keir Simmons.

'Russian bounties' intelligence was in Trump written daily briefing – reports | US news | The Guardian

I hear people say "well we did it in the seventies, as if it's an excuse.
It was not good when we did it, and it is not good that the Russians are doing it now.
Period!!! and for trump to claim ignorance is no excuse. He is either ignorant or corrupt.
Either one not a desirable conditions for a President.

Another of goldilock's promises goes down in flames.

House panel votes to constrain Afghan drawdown, ask for assessment on 'incentives' to attack US troops

By Rebecca Kheel - 07/01/20 11:24 PM EDT 467
4,029

The House Armed Services Committee voted Wednesday to put roadblocks on President Trump’s ability to withdraw from Afghanistan, including requiring an assessment on whether any country has offered incentives for the Taliban to attack U.S. and coalition troops.

The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) amendment, from Rep. Jason Crow (D-Colo.), would require several certifications before the U.S. military can further draw down in Afghanistan.

The amendment was approved 45-11.

Rep. Liz Cheney (Wyo.), the No. 3 House Republican, argued the amendment “lays out, in a very responsible level of specificity, what is going to be required if we are going to in fact make decisions about troop levels based on conditions on the ground and based on what's required for our own security, not based on political timelines."

“And that is crucially important, and I think it is our number one priority,” she added.

The amendment comes as Trump’s withdrawal deal with the Taliban remains precarious as high violence levels persist in Afghanistan.

The U.S. military has said it is down to 8,600 troops, in line with the agreement to get to that level by mid-July. But military officials have insisted any further drawdown will be based on conditions on the ground that are not yet met, even as Trump pushes for a speedy withdrawal.

The amendment also comes amid a firestorm in Washington over intelligence showing a Russian military unit offered bounties to Taliban-linked militias to kill U.S. and coalition service members in Afghanistan.

Among the amendment’s requirements is an assessment of whether any “state actors have provided any incentives to the Taliban, their affiliates, or other foreign terrorist organizations for attacks against United States, coalition, or Afghan security forces or civilians in Afghanistan in the last two years, including the details of any attacks believed to have been connected with such incentives.”

Rep. Seth Moulton (D-Mass.) framed the measure as particularly important in light of the revelations.

“There's been bipartisan criticism of what a weak deal [Trump] got with the Taliban, a deal that is already falling apart,” Moulton said. “Now we learned that he was making this deal at the same time as there were bounties on the heads of American troops, American sons and daughters. We clearly need more oversight over what the president is doing in Afghanistan.”

Crow’s amendment would block funding to dip below 8,000 troops and then again to below 4,000 troops unless the administration certifies that doing so would not compromise the U.S. counterterrorism mission in Afghanistan, not increase risk for U.S. personnel there, be done in consultation with allies, and is in the best interest of the United States.

It would also require an analysis on the effects of a drawdown on the threat from the Taliban, the status of human and civil rights, an inclusive Afghan peace process, the capacity of Afghan forces and the effect of malign actors on Afghan sovereignty.

Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.), a staunch Trump ally, argued the amendment would unfairly tie the administration’s hands.

“A great nation does not force the next generation to fight their wars, and that's what we've done in Afghanistan,” Gaetz said. “I think the best day to have not had the war in Afghanistan was when we started it, and the next best day is tomorrow."

"I don't think there's ever a bad day to end the war in Afghanistan," he added. "Our generation is weary of this and tired of this.”

https://thehill.com/policy/defense/5...-assessment-on