Russia Paid Bounties to Murder US Troops, Trump Lets Them

How many Americans died?

A hint. Enough for me not to give a ****

 

Just like I don't give a **** about Russia having Syria

Nothing but a problem

 

Letting Russia have that **** is a proven winner

 

To answer your question, there are no reported US casualties since at least 04/01/2020, but in the post I replied to, that wasn't your point. I was responding to the post in which you wrote:

We know Afghanistan is a lot more peaceful than its been for EIGHTEEN years.

 

Those idiots can't even collect bounty rubles in that mess

 

............

 

Your lack of support for our troops has been noted.

 

if your neighbor put a bounty on your family and no one got killed, you don’t give a ****?
You would instead invite him over for fancy dinner and acted on some his long dreamed demands?

well, maybe you never ever were family, so go take a hike and join your neighbor that you admire and love

 

Delete

 

If true:
Are you ok with putin putting bounty on us troops?
Are you ok with trump being ok with it?

 

Of course he is.

 

... "and was included in the president's daily presidential briefing"

 

Great thread by David Priess... https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1277091834884481025.html



The article claims Trump was briefed on the assessment.

The White House claims he wasn’t.

Normally, presidential aides would want to *avoid* telling the world he’s ill-informed. That doing so looks like their best strategy here reveals much.

Let’s examine the options.

3/10

Maybe POTUS was “briefed” on it—not orally but only in writing, presumably (but not necessarily) in the President’s Daily Brief.

If so, White House officials now pushing the line that he wasn’t briefed on it are playing semantic games.

If so, shame on them. And on him.

Maybe multiple sources are all wrong and there is no such assessment. (Neither the White House nor other entities have denied the core of the reporting, making this option quite unlikely, but it’s theoretically possible.)

If so, shame on the sources.

4/10

Maybe the assessment was briefed only sub-POTUS because it was judged not to merit his attention.

(This would be at odds with reporting just now by the same NYT trio—that it was, in fact, in the President’s Daily Brief.)

If so, shame on the system.

5/10

Maybe POTUS was, in fact, orally briefed on it—but White House officials have decided to lie about it, perhaps in a weak attempt to avoid the logical next question: Why hasn’t the commander in chief responded to such a grave development?

If so, shame on them. And on him.

6/10

7/10
Maybe it was in the written PDB, but Trump didn’t see it (reports say he doesn’t read it, preferring irregular oral briefings) *and* readers like the NatSec Advisor, SecState, and SecDef saw it *and* they forgot to ensure he knew about it.

If so, shame on them. And on him.

8/10
Maybe it was deemed too sensitive to put in the PDB and restricted to a memo/oral briefing only for POTUS and 1-2 others.

Then how was it debated, as reports indicate, at an NSC interagency meeting?

Any explanation like this returns us to one or more of the shames above.

9/10
Or maybe the assessment was in the PDB and other regular PDB readers saw it, but it wasn’t orally briefed to POTUS so he never got it, and nobody in the system wanted this commander in chief to get it, because they were afraid of what he’d do, or *not* do, after getting it.

/end

 

Gosh... might be something that the Congress, you know, constitutionally a co-equal branch in our government, might want to investigate?

 

Weird... trump claims ignorance of briefings about russia putting bounties on American soldiers, weakens/removes sanctions, sides with putin re: russian interference in American elections, scales down troops in Germany (a russian objective for years), then invites russia back into the G7, and claims Joe Biden is weak on russia for kicking russia out of the G7?

 

So far, at no time has trump or anyone in his admin directly said the information in the reporting is false... because it appears it is true. Their only argument is whether trump was "briefed"...

 

No om not but even the suggested responses were slaps on the wrists.

"Making a complaint to Moscow and a demand to stop it"

 

So... trump's version of the story is that there have been attacks, but have not been many attacks on American troops?