gawd damn you are stupid
I SAID it was at the FYI level -which is NOT actionable -it's a heads up
we also know no soldiers were killed by this specious "bounty"
Colin Powell called press coverage "hysterical" -go pound sand you moron
How does it feel to support a president who is complicit in the murder of US troops?
- Thread starter Jerome
- Start date
I SAID it was at the FYI level -which is NOT actionable -it's a heads up
we also know no soldiers were killed by this specious "bounty"
Colin Powell called press coverage "hysterical" -go pound sand you moron
But it was credible and actionable since it appeared in the PDB. Why would a PDB contain information that isn't credible? Why waste the President's time?
A "heads up" to do that?
An "FYI" to do what?
So now you're simultaneously arguing that the intel was credible enough to warrant a "heads up", but not credible enough to warrant action?????
Why would they raise this to the President if it didn't warrant a response?
Actually, what Powell said was the coverage was "hysterical in the first couple days".
So once again, you lied and embellished. This time you did it by ripping the full context out of Powell's quote.
Why is it that you constantly have to do that on JPP?
Bill lied on pussy, but nobody died, did they?
Hillary lied and 4 honorable people died.
For whatever their faults were, I never felt it was that hard to defend Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, or Barack Obama on a policy and competence basis.
What must it be like to belong to a party where you have spent the 21st century defending George Dumbya Bush, Sarah Palin, and Donald Trumpf?
What must it be like to belong to a party where you have spent the 21st century defending George Dumbya Bush, Sarah Palin, and Donald Trumpf?
Don't forget Dan Quayle in this. "No, son, nice try, but it's spelled potatoe, with an -e-"
JFC. you are a yammering fool
credible or a heads up is just that -it's at the FYI level ( because of subject matter is important for POTUS eyes)
but
ACTIONABLE is a specific term -the NSC ( OR IC leadership) says this is something that is strongly confirmed enough that POTUS can have confidence that whatever he decides, the INTEL is of highest enough veracity
that it is actionable by POTUS if he/she desires
So you keep changing your position on this, flipping between the intelligence being credible enough to warrant the President's attention, but not credible enough for him to take action.
That's cognitive dissonance.
Right, and only that stuff appears in a PDB. They don't put rumors in a PDB. They put actionable items in there.
So now you're saying Trump didn't believe that there was anything actionable there, which makes sense in the context of all the favors he does for Putin.
So the only reason you are saying it wasn't actionable is because Trump didn't.
Which means the bounties occurred and Trump doesn't care.
HA HA HA -you are beyond hopeless!!
ACTIONABLE = high quality, multiple sourced or vetted with high enough confidence that POTUS is confident what he is hearing is verified to the level he can take action
CREDIBLE = appears to be true based on analytics or enough sources that this isn't just raw intel
(report form)
FYI = urgent info for POTUS 'eyes" but not more then just raw intel ( not in report form )
talking to yourself without discriminating between the terminology in an effort to delude yourself
I expect you to change these goalposts in the next post or two.
So your big argument is that anything that ends up in a PDB is credible, but not actionable, and it's up to the President's discretion what is actionable and what isn't.
So Trump heard that Russia was putting bounties on US troops, AT LEAST TWICE, and he determined that he wasn't going to respond at all about it.
How did he reach that determination?
You just made these definitions up ad hoc, didn't you?
The problem is you just invented the standards for those terms ad hoc, didn't you?
You literally just made them up on the spot, and you will change them again.
FYI - none of those designations exist in any PDB.
So just like you did with the mail-in ballot, you're embellishing.
Here's an actual PDB...I don't see any of these classifications that you insist exist (without proof): https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB116/pdb8-6-2001.pdf
And here's the government telling you what a PDB is...notice how they don't mention these three goalposts you brought up:
How come all you do here is lie and bullshit?????
OMG.
the PDB is written in report form but the CONTENTS are determined by the criteria I gave you
Actionable for sure goes in -but it's written by the CIA w/input by the NSA /FBI and other IC as needed.
I dont think the DNI actually writes it - i'm not 100% sure but I think that is done by the CIA?
so THE WRITER uses the CRITERIA I JUST GAVE YOU to DETERMINE WHAT GOES IN OR NOT