Russia Paid Bounties to Murder US Troops, Trump Lets Them

War hero senatorial candidate in Arizona is asking...



Wow.. army secretary esper's story quick changed from "never heard the word bounty" to he "was briefed on russian bounties" but that they was no conculsive evidence "directly" linking bounties to any soldiers deaths. Which suggests he received info indirectly linking to American deaths? One thing for sure... this went from "a hoax" and "fake news" to "well, yea, there were russian bounties, but we didn't find enough evidence to prove soldiers died because of them". All the while trump announced he would invite russia to the United States and after inviting russia back into the G7. And announced he would withdraw troops from Germany (long something russia wanted).

 

LOL on you're being an American

 

and you're a joke of an american

 

Sure seems the military wants to take action... and that the military agrees that trump is not responding as "robustly" as necessary since intelligence officials are "reticent" to provide "negative" information on russia to trump. The military and intelligence must think trump is compromised.

Top US general vows response if military confirms reports of Russian bounties
Gen Mark Milley tells lawmakers Pentagon is investigating reports Russia paid for attacks on US soldiers in Afghanistan


America’s top general has said military intelligence agencies are working to corroborate reports of Russia paying Taliban fighters bounties for killing US soldiers and vowed a response if they were confirmed.

Gen Mark Milley, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, told the House armed services committee, that the Pentagon was committed to discovering whether Russian military intelligence had paid for attacks on American soldiers in Afghanistan.

“We’re going to get to the bottom of this bounty thing. If in fact there are bounties, I’m an outraged general, just like every one of us in uniform is,” Milley said. “That’s a real big deal. We don’t have that level of fidelity yet, but we’re still looking.”

He suggested that the US may not be responding to the reports as robustly as necessary in non-military ways.

“The issue is at the strategic level,” he said. “Is there diplomatic, and informational and economic … sanctions, are there démarches, are there phone calls, is there pressure, those sorts of things. And I can tell you that some of that is done. Are we doing as much as we could or should? Perhaps not, not only to the Russians but to others.”

The defence secretary, Mark Esper, who was testifying alongside Milley, said that the original reports did not come from any of the nine of the total of 17 US intelligence agencies under Pentagon’s authority, implying the information leaked to the press in recent weeks came from the CIA or another civilian agency.

Esper said the reports were first reviewed by the Pentagon in January, when they were shown to Milley and the head of US central command, Gen Kenneth McKenzie, and the defence secretary became aware of them in February.

“They got some initial reporting on the ground that they began pursuing. Neither thought the reports were credible, as they dug into them,” Esper said.

Milley stressed that the investigation was not over. “I and the secretary and others are taking it seriously,” the general said. “We’re going to get to the bottom of it. When I find out if, in fact, it’s true. And if it is true, we will take action.”

Donald Trump has insisted he was not briefed on the Russian bounties. It has been reported that the suspicions were summarised in written form as part of the president’s daily brief, but the national security adviser, Robert O’Brien, has said it was the decision of the CIA briefer not to present them verbally.

Intelligence officials are reported to have been reticent in passing on negative information about Russian activities to Trump because of his angry reaction. So far, the Trump administration has not announced any retaliatory action.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...=Social&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1594374582

 

Bring'em home.

 

Congressman calls for action...

 

Protect and defend them first

 

Bring'em home.

There is no valid reason to be there.

I remember when the left was anti-war... what happened ?? Stop war hawking. Anything other than bring'em home is war mongering. I can't go along with it.

Which hell, is one of the few valid critiques of Trump. He still hasn't properly brought troops home.

 

To clarify, I'm not saying the ambiguity of the intel excuses the Trump administration for not taking the threat seriously. If there had been evidence of any kind, such as a financial transaction, and Trump knew about it, then the fact that he is dismissing the information as a hoax or a political attack is pretty damning.

In fact, it shows to me (again) just how unqualified he is to maneuver through the nuances of the job as commander-in-chief.

 

Its about losing the election. When John McCain wanted to go into Georgia Democrats were Democrats. Imagine if it happened now

 

There hasn't been a US casualty in how many months? Anywhere?

 

yeah anyone planning, threatening, paying bounties

will you let others planning, threatening, paying bounties to have you love ones killed?

or will you at least take them seriously?

 

and if true his subordinates kept him in the dark its just right for him to have it investigated at the very least

 

The left is anti war. But the left is typically pretty smart when it comes to understanding what that means. Sometimes our troops play a strategic role in our assistance, training, or presence TO PREVENT war.

Northern Syria was one of those places where our presence and training was important to preventing violence. Namely ISIS... you remember them don’t you? As well as protecting the Kurds from being slaughtered by Turkish forces who wanted to see them wiped out. And our presence and support in Germany is also incredibly important from a show of solidarity with post WW2 Europe even though that base is mostly a training base, but it’s strategic in a way that allows for us to much easily support our allies if something happened.

These are areas where liberals do support the role of our troops, as they should. Now is the war in Afghanistan the same thing??? Hell no.

So why is Trump sending home troops from Germany but not Afghanistan? Why is he sending more troops to places like Yemen and just shifting them away from northern Syria?

The answer is easy? Trump is a strategic fool when it comes to the use of our military and serves Putin and Erdogan more than serving our real allies. He’d rather benefit North Korea than South Korea because he thinks that’s best for Trump politically and personally financially.

So get your facts straight on what you try to project onto liberals and misrepresent our goals for national and global security which every liberal believes to be important.

 

surprised no one's posted this yet. It comes from MSNBC and everything.

 

I understood individuals being caught up in Trump and Putin conspiracy theories. People really believed he conspired with Russia.

Unfortunately that not only falls on the media it falls on our intelligence agencies. I never believed in collusion. It was just stupid. Donald Trump didn't just fall out the sky. He has been around since the seventies. He wouldn't all of a sudden be comprised like that

Trump has questionable love for dictators. But he has no motivation to let Russia get away with something like this. I do understand that if accusations like this are out there they seem priority.

The New York Times does not look good. Their sources were wrong in their accusations of Trump being briefed. But they are more guilty of the hysteria. If our intelligence agencies were truly worried about negligence by the president on an issue it wouldn't take anonymous sources to make it public. This story went from possible Congressional hearings to no mention in less than a week. In that week the Times ran a couple more backups that had different versions of events. They never acknowledged being wrong about anything.

 

WWII really? We have to have bases based on WWII? Everyone is dead bro. NATO is outdated. The USSR died 30 years ago

It's a new world in all kinds of ways

 

What a hot take!

 

Brosephus

You live in fairy land.

 

With all due respect.... one of the most ignorant things posted here in weeks and that's saying alot.