Donald Trump's Intelligence

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by jpietrzak8, Jan 5, 2017.

  1. jpietrzak8 macrumors 65816

    jpietrzak8

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2010
    Location:
    Dayton, Ohio
    #1
    For a long, long time now, Trump has disagreed with what America's intelligence agencies have been telling him. And so, he is now doing the logical thing to fix that situation:

    and
    http://www.wsj.com/articles/lawmake...umps-dismissal-of-u-s-intelligence-1483554450
     
  2. lowendlinux Contributor

    lowendlinux

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2014
    Location:
    North Country (way upstate NY)
    #2
  3. DearthnVader macrumors regular

    DearthnVader

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2015
    Location:
    Red Springs, NC
    #3
    Likely a bad idea to push analysts out into the field, cut the bureaucracy.
     
  4. BeefCake 15 macrumors 65816

    BeefCake 15

    Joined:
    May 15, 2015
    Location:
    near Boston, MA
    #4
    I don't think the bandwidth available on MR's website is capable of handling a discussion on DT's intelligence....
     
  5. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #5
    One bad intelligence failure and trump will have a lot to account for.

    Honestly, I hope it doesn't happen.

    But considering the state of things, he's really putting himself out on a limb.
     
  6. DearthnVader macrumors regular

    DearthnVader

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2015
    Location:
    Red Springs, NC
    #6
    The Donald's I.Q. is HUGE!!!:D
     
  7. yaxomoxay macrumors 68000

    yaxomoxay

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2010
    Location:
    Texas
    #7
    ahhahah I lol'd at this ;)
     
  8. oneMadRssn macrumors 68040

    oneMadRssn

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2011
    Location:
    Boston, MA
    #8
    Trump is afraid of being Comey'd in the future. He saw what happened to Clinton, and he knows the same could just as easily happen to him. Trump probably has no idea where his email server is. He wants to prevent it from happening to him. Can't say I blame him - it's a reasonable fear.
     
  9. webbuzz macrumors 65816

    webbuzz

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2010
    #9
    Sean Spicer is denying the claims in the WSJ article.

    [​IMG]
     
  10. Tomorrow macrumors 604

    Tomorrow

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2008
    Location:
    Always a day away
    #10
    Agreed. Bush listened to his intelligence people regarding WMD's in Iraq, and people STILL won't let him live it down.
     
  11. DUCKofD3ATH Suspended

    DUCKofD3ATH

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2005
    Location:
    Universe 0 Timeline
    #11
    Smart thing to do. Get rid of the chair warmers and political hacks. The others will learn from the example and start doing honest work or they'll be unemployed too.
     
  12. vrDrew macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2010
    Location:
    Midlife, Midwest
    #12
    Actually that isn't what happened. At all.

    The 2002 National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq concluded, among other things, that there was precisely zero link between the Government of Iraq and the 9/11 attacks. It stated that fact quite categorically, something a fair number of Fox News viewers still choose to ignore.

    The CIA was more circumspect on the matter of WMD. It did say, for instance, that Iraq had renovated a vaccine plant that may be used for the production of biological weapons. It also reported that individuals making claims about Iraq's WMD production were of "questionable" character - such as the infamous "CURVEBALL" source.

    The CIA held up its end of the bargain: It gave President Bush all the information it had about Iraq, including reports that were - in the CIA's view - "questionable" and not reliable. The problem was that the Bush administration used these "questionable" reports as a rationale for something far beyond what the intelligence analysis suggested was there.
     
  13. AlliFlowers Contributor

    AlliFlowers

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2011
    Location:
    L.A. (Lower Alabama)
    #13
    It's just a warm-up for combining the US and Russian intelligence agencies so that we can share. All part of the gradual move to become the SSR-America.
     
  14. citizenzen, Jan 5, 2017
    Last edited: Jan 5, 2017

    citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #14
    I thought about responding similarly, but figured it was going to fall on deaf ears.

    Thanks for putting in the effort despite the likelihood that it won't make a difference.
    --- Post Merged, Jan 5, 2017 ---
    I would have no problem with an alliance with Russia so long as it doesn't come at the expense of NATO. If Russia wants to join NATO, or at least become an ally with the U.S. and European community, then that would be a positive thing.

    The question that I have is how much would we have to give up. I doubt that Russia is looking to form an alliance without seeking something in return.
     
  15. ibookg409 Suspended

    ibookg409

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2016
    Location:
    Portsmouth, NH
    #15
    Right. All the Mensa members here would go crazy. :rolleyes:
     
  16. bent christian, Jan 5, 2017
    Last edited: Jan 5, 2017
  17. pdqgp macrumors 68020

    pdqgp

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2010
    #17
    word is he rarely if ever uses email and instead picks up the phone.
     
  18. DUCKofD3ATH Suspended

    DUCKofD3ATH

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2005
    Location:
    Universe 0 Timeline
    #18
  19. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #19
  20. LizKat macrumors 68040

    LizKat

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Location:
    Catskill Mountains
    #20
    Translation: trial balloon up, responses measured, one option down, more to come.
    --- Post Merged, Jan 5, 2017 ---
    Yeah well it does kinda have that look and feel...

    Xi Jinping memo to self: maybe rethink removal of NYT app from China's App Store. Maybe like to keep track of how NYT readers think this merger is going..

    I'll tell you how this NYT reader thinks Trump's Russian reset is going: all too well. But don't take my word for it, we should each ask our own congress critters. Real Soon Now.
     
  21. Naaaaak macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2010
    #21
    3 things Obama and the establishment idiots struggled with for 8 years.
     
  22. MadeTheSwitch macrumors 6502a

    MadeTheSwitch

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2009
    #22
    An absolute impossibility. One, other NATO allies don't trust Russia to not want to rope them into a recreation of the USSR. Two, we have our nukes aimed at each other, something allies tend not to do. Three, they aren't so good on human rights and the whole cyber warfare thing is a deal breaker. I just don't think an alliance with a former KGB guy is in the realm of possibility or would even work.
     
  23. AlliFlowers Contributor

    AlliFlowers

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2011
    Location:
    L.A. (Lower Alabama)
    #23
    Easy. Russia won't need to join NATO, and what it gets in return for the partnership is a new SSR. The US will be forced to leave NATO as it will no longer be the US. I doubt that California will join the impending absorption by Russia and will not want to become part of its newest SSR.
     
  24. Gutwrench macrumors 65816

    Gutwrench

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2011
    #24
    I doubt anyone disagrees that the intelligence community ought to be held to high standards and be productive? I think they need a hard look.
     
  25. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #25
    Okay, now you've gone a bit too far ... other than the part about California.

    California will NEVER surrender!
    --- Post Merged, Jan 6, 2017 ---
    Every part of government should be held to a high standard and deserves a hard look to ensure it's working effectively and efficiently.

    But why disparage the intelligence community so often, so publicly?
     

Share This Page