Wasn't that actually more related to Tenet "massaging" the info (against his analysts) for his buddy W?
CIA: Russia influenced election to help Trump win
- Thread starter CharminTide
- Start date
- Status
Surely no one in charge would bow to pressure fro superiors or be prone to "massage" the message for their friend?!
it never ceases to amaze me the amount of effort folks go through to try to put obama in his place.
So you think because a previous CIA director bowed to political pressure we can never believe anything out of the CIA again even though that director is long gone?
I don't care either way but honestly wasn't Mexico and Europe interested in seeing Obama win in 08, 12? Traditionally, that can be considered meddling as well. The UK does it all the time for our elections. If they can't prove that Russia hacked our voting systems and gave Trump +2 to Hillary's +1 for each vote, then it's a non-issue as far as I'm concerned.
Politics is basically ... if your guy does it, it's wrong. If my guy does it, he's right. I'm utterly astonished that most Americans (actually Humans everywhere) are blind to that.
Its one thing to openly take actions to influence voting. Its quite another thing to covertly take illegal actions (via hacking) to influence voting.
I don't believe the POTUS will be reading this so I am obviously not trying to put anyone in his place. I am just noting a fact. I don't disagree with all of his work but I do think he went about it wrong when handling his opponents. For example "Elections have consequences". While true that is intended to insult and put people in their place. I've been managing people since about 1980 and have never felt the need to insult or belittle those people. I think it is detrimental to all future work between the two. I think the last eight years of stagnation is due largely to President Obama's unwillingness to compromise at all.
Agree 100% and if it was Trump, W, Reagan, libs will find a way to do that to them. 100% predictable. I try to view all of them as honorable in some way and yet flawed in others just like anyone else.
Agreed. But, there's yet to be any proof. I think Selma said it well though, there can be proof come about and voters won't care really as long as my guy won. If the shoe was on the other foot, it would be the same.
Let's take this discussion back to "ground-zero" and clarify some things that may be in dispute.
1: On the first point of contention that there was actual hacking sanctioned by or with the knowledge of the Russian government of Republican or Democratic party emails/servers. Not getting into motive just yet.
If that did indeed happen, then it is a problem and should be examined thoroughly and appropriate countermeasures taken. I'll not theorize what I believe those measures should be since I know not the extent of the breach or the damage of the hacking as we have not discussed motive or the effectiveness of said hackings. But a breach like that should not be ignored or taken lightly by any person of any political persuasion. I'm not convinced much would change with our current situation but it is important.
2: If it is agreed that both parties were hacked then we have to dive into the sticky situation of "motive." Recall however, that this is agreeing that both parties were hacked by a foreign power. That to me is cause enough for concern. The main point of dispute seems to be whether the Russians were attempting to influence the election in favor of Donald Trump. Various intelligence officials have different opinions about this because there is a lot of inference occurring based on the data sets, trends and behaviors of the Russian government after the partisan hackings took place. Motive is important - however, I still maintain the root concern that, regardless of motive, it is egregious and unacceptable for any foreign power to interfere or attempt to manipulate the outcome of any election. And the argument that "this is nothing new for Russia" does not minimize the severity of the transgression. Repeat offenses does not diminish the action, IMO. Serial killers aren't shrugged off because "well killing people isn't exactly new for Jeffrey Dahmer." They shouldn't be tampering, regardless of what goal they were seeking to reach.
3: The validity of the hacking effectiveness. I've seen this argument posited by posters who I often agree with and whose world view I (mostly) share. IF (Hypothetical "IF") we were to agree that the purpose of the Russian hacks was to help elect Donald Trump, many people, including myself, would not suppose that the leaked emails had a large influence on the outcome of the election. HOWEVER, I don't think that this is a valid argument as it, yet again, does not nullify the cardinal sin of the Russian government of attempting to influence the election. Just because an evil plan didn't work is no reason to just shrug it off. "Attempted Murder" is still a serious crime even though they didn't achieve their intended goal of "murder." We still send those people to jail. So while I would agree that it wasn't wholly effective (I think the election was won and lost in other areas) I don't think this is a proper defense or reason to dismiss the actions of the Russians.
There is a lot of nuance and "if's" and "buts" and "well this agency is saying this." One final point. Even as a conservative I don't understand the validity or point being made by the WMD argument. Are you trying to say there is a conspiracy by government intelligence agencies to sway the executive branch into rash decisions or actions such as going to war in Iraq, and that this is just another ploy to cause such a reaction? Or are you saying that because intelligence agencies got it wrong on Iraq that we should never listen to them again? The first would open a whole other can of worms and the second is not an argument.
1: On the first point of contention that there was actual hacking sanctioned by or with the knowledge of the Russian government of Republican or Democratic party emails/servers. Not getting into motive just yet.
If that did indeed happen, then it is a problem and should be examined thoroughly and appropriate countermeasures taken. I'll not theorize what I believe those measures should be since I know not the extent of the breach or the damage of the hacking as we have not discussed motive or the effectiveness of said hackings. But a breach like that should not be ignored or taken lightly by any person of any political persuasion. I'm not convinced much would change with our current situation but it is important.
2: If it is agreed that both parties were hacked then we have to dive into the sticky situation of "motive." Recall however, that this is agreeing that both parties were hacked by a foreign power. That to me is cause enough for concern. The main point of dispute seems to be whether the Russians were attempting to influence the election in favor of Donald Trump. Various intelligence officials have different opinions about this because there is a lot of inference occurring based on the data sets, trends and behaviors of the Russian government after the partisan hackings took place. Motive is important - however, I still maintain the root concern that, regardless of motive, it is egregious and unacceptable for any foreign power to interfere or attempt to manipulate the outcome of any election. And the argument that "this is nothing new for Russia" does not minimize the severity of the transgression. Repeat offenses does not diminish the action, IMO. Serial killers aren't shrugged off because "well killing people isn't exactly new for Jeffrey Dahmer." They shouldn't be tampering, regardless of what goal they were seeking to reach.
3: The validity of the hacking effectiveness. I've seen this argument posited by posters who I often agree with and whose world view I (mostly) share. IF (Hypothetical "IF") we were to agree that the purpose of the Russian hacks was to help elect Donald Trump, many people, including myself, would not suppose that the leaked emails had a large influence on the outcome of the election. HOWEVER, I don't think that this is a valid argument as it, yet again, does not nullify the cardinal sin of the Russian government of attempting to influence the election. Just because an evil plan didn't work is no reason to just shrug it off. "Attempted Murder" is still a serious crime even though they didn't achieve their intended goal of "murder." We still send those people to jail. So while I would agree that it wasn't wholly effective (I think the election was won and lost in other areas) I don't think this is a proper defense or reason to dismiss the actions of the Russians.
There is a lot of nuance and "if's" and "buts" and "well this agency is saying this." One final point. Even as a conservative I don't understand the validity or point being made by the WMD argument. Are you trying to say there is a conspiracy by government intelligence agencies to sway the executive branch into rash decisions or actions such as going to war in Iraq, and that this is just another ploy to cause such a reaction? Or are you saying that because intelligence agencies got it wrong on Iraq that we should never listen to them again? The first would open a whole other can of worms and the second is not an argument.
im well aware of that. what i am talking about is the amount that folks go out of their way to interject their disdain for obama (or hillary if it's selma
) in an otherwise non-related discussion.
I'm Pretty Much Onboard With You.WRT the WMD, the point is that if the only evidence you are presenting is an appeal to authority then that authority has been wrong before so why should I believe them now? Maybe I should, but I would do so with a weary eye. One poster at least even claimed above that this entity "massaged" the intel for his buddy, the former president and I'm supposed to believe the current director now, why exactly? Investigate. Release the info. Let the chips fall where they may. And then what? I guess that depends on where the evidence leads.
Just a reminder that fake news didn't bother the Left in this country at all - just so long as THEY were the ones propagating it....
I agree that our intelligence has some credibility to regain. But it's a bit like the weatherman on tv. Bear with me. I think meteorologists are idiots. I remember the 1 time they got it wrong and said it was supposed to be 72 degrees and sunshine but instead it was 56 and raining. I never forget when the screw it up. It's cognitive bias on my part. They are obviously correct more often than they are incorrect. With regards to intelligence we obviously remember the big bungles like Iraq. But it would do us well to notice some of the public triumphs. We did get Bin Laden, after all. And I'd reckon they also get things very right in private, where the public can't see them. All I'm saying is to try and be aware of the areas were cognitive bias may be lurking.
- Status
New Posts
-
-
-
-
SIAP there was an article that Joe K interviewed for assistant coach
- Latest: CajunCrimson
-
-
Latest threads
-
-
SIAP there was an article that Joe K interviewed for assistant coach
- Started by mlingerfelt31
- Replies: 9
-
Final Home Midweek for Alabama Brings Samford to The Joe- Started by Diamond Tide
- Replies: 0
-
-
-
