Posted on Mar 19, 2022
If U.S. Intelligence Will Lie So Easily About Anything, Why Would We Believe Them About Ukraine?...
1.94K
30
18
9
9
0
Or as Brit Hume so recently and succinctly said "Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus"
If U.S. Intelligence Will Lie So Easily About Anything, Why Would We Believe Them About Ukraine?...
Posted from theconservativetreehouse.com
Ukraine
Government
FBI
DoD
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 7
4
4
0
What is the truth? I remember Clapper saying Trump was involved in Russian collusion. We do know one reporter was wounded and one killed. The media coordinated with US Intelligence and Democrats to manipulate Americans during the election. Are we being manipulated about the Ukraine?
(4)
(0)
2
2
0
There is a huge assumption in there, that they are lying. Intelligence is the art of making educated guesses on what is happening given imperfect information and people purposely trying to deceive them. All people who make educated guesses sometimes make the wrong guess, that doesn't mean they are lying.
Given the fact that the source just makes stuff up, this isn't so surprising.
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-last-refuge/
Now what is more surprising, or maybe not, is why Rallypoint members are purposely passing around Russian propaganda? When I first came here people were passing around white supremacist links, like the daily stormer. A lot of that is now gone, just leaving people who like to pass around Russian propaganda like the above link.
Given the fact that the source just makes stuff up, this isn't so surprising.
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-last-refuge/
Now what is more surprising, or maybe not, is why Rallypoint members are purposely passing around Russian propaganda? When I first came here people were passing around white supremacist links, like the daily stormer. A lot of that is now gone, just leaving people who like to pass around Russian propaganda like the above link.
The Last Refuge (Conservative Treehouse)
QUESTIONABLE SOURCE A questionable source exhibitsone or more of the following: extreme bias, consistent promotion of propaganda/conspiracies, poor or no
(2)
(0)
(0)
(0)
Suspended Profile
SPC Kevin Ford it’s also comically wrong in its entire premise. The claim that the war isn’t being documented on social media is pathetically wrong and ignorant. I don’t know what platforms the author monitors but twitter, tiktok, Instagram and Facebook are all full…FULL…of Ukrainians documenting what the Russians are doing and the impact on their lives. I *suspect* the author knows that to be true but also knows the people inclined to believe this nonsense won’t bother to check they’ll just full send on the outrage
SPC Kevin Ford
SFC Bernard Walko - I'd quibble a bit on finding Trump innocent. What they found is they hadn't uncovered enough evidence of the crime of conspiracy to send to trial (Obstruction of Justice was another matter). So I agree that a person is considered innocent until proven guilty, but the term "found innocent" (at least in my mind) says that they proved him to be innocent, which they did not do, nor were they looking to do.
I'd also argue there was a whole bunch of PR chicanery in that investigation on both sides around the use of the word "collusion". Collusion is not a crime, Mueller was only looking into crimes and that is a reason why the word never showed up in Mueller's document (likely very purposefully). He was never going to find collusion from the very fist day of the investigation as it wasn't a crime. Having said that, if you read the fact checkers at they time, I remember they pointed that out.
You stated, "The fact checkers followed suit." I'd have to see an example where the fact checkers (and I mean like mediabiasfactcheck, politifact or similar) went outside the realm of the factual. I'm sure there is some example, somewhere, where they messed up. I'll give you somewhere it probably exists. But it seems to me you are implying a pattern of misconduct and distortion of the truth my those sites and I'd have to see some examples of where you think that is happening to evaluate.
BTW, we also know Trump could never hold a security clearance for many of the reasons that the Democrats were pointing out. I don't just mean the stuff in the Steele dossier, but his financial ties, constant lying, surrounding himself with unregistered foreign agents of a hostile power, unknown financial situation, etc.
I'd also argue there was a whole bunch of PR chicanery in that investigation on both sides around the use of the word "collusion". Collusion is not a crime, Mueller was only looking into crimes and that is a reason why the word never showed up in Mueller's document (likely very purposefully). He was never going to find collusion from the very fist day of the investigation as it wasn't a crime. Having said that, if you read the fact checkers at they time, I remember they pointed that out.
You stated, "The fact checkers followed suit." I'd have to see an example where the fact checkers (and I mean like mediabiasfactcheck, politifact or similar) went outside the realm of the factual. I'm sure there is some example, somewhere, where they messed up. I'll give you somewhere it probably exists. But it seems to me you are implying a pattern of misconduct and distortion of the truth my those sites and I'd have to see some examples of where you think that is happening to evaluate.
BTW, we also know Trump could never hold a security clearance for many of the reasons that the Democrats were pointing out. I don't just mean the stuff in the Steele dossier, but his financial ties, constant lying, surrounding himself with unregistered foreign agents of a hostile power, unknown financial situation, etc.
(0)
(0)
SPC Kevin Ford
SFC Bernard Walko - So you have me thinking, before Trump would presidents be able to get a TS/SCI clearance and would they have passes a SBI (I mean a modern SBI, with today's standards)?
Here are my thoughts (surprisingly most probably)
Obama - Probably (I can't think of any serious derogatory information, he did smoke pot but that is generally OK if it is admitted to and with the caveat that it isn't done any more, not sure how legalization would impact that)
Bush II - Neutral (his earlier hard drug use could have been a problem but it is not a definite disqualifier)
Clinton - Neutral (some financial problems may have been revealed around Whitewater but like Bush II, not necessarily going to knock him out)
Bush I - Probably (almost definitely, former director of the CIA).
Reagan - Probably (I can't think of any serious derogatory information)
Carter - Probably (guy is a boy scout)
Ford - Probably (I can't think of any serious derogatory information)
Nixon - Probably (Of course he would have lost it after a certain incident)
I don't really have a feel for anything before that. But that's my guess as to who would have passed a modern SBI.
Here are my thoughts (surprisingly most probably)
Obama - Probably (I can't think of any serious derogatory information, he did smoke pot but that is generally OK if it is admitted to and with the caveat that it isn't done any more, not sure how legalization would impact that)
Bush II - Neutral (his earlier hard drug use could have been a problem but it is not a definite disqualifier)
Clinton - Neutral (some financial problems may have been revealed around Whitewater but like Bush II, not necessarily going to knock him out)
Bush I - Probably (almost definitely, former director of the CIA).
Reagan - Probably (I can't think of any serious derogatory information)
Carter - Probably (guy is a boy scout)
Ford - Probably (I can't think of any serious derogatory information)
Nixon - Probably (Of course he would have lost it after a certain incident)
I don't really have a feel for anything before that. But that's my guess as to who would have passed a modern SBI.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google