Russia & Ukraine

[Cuddles]

Thanks for the well thought out reply.

I also am not claiming that. What I'm claiming is that;
What was at stake during the IRAQ incident was much greater than what's at stake now. There is a greater 'need to know' for the public with such large-scale military action is involved (invade country and take over, or not), vs. our current scenario of either gamesmanship or a leak that another country is about to false flag against another non-NATO country. The fact that military action will be involved is not a question in the current case. It is understood as a fact now. It was a fact before the spokesperson spoke; and it's still a fact.
Whether the US is lying or not ... how could that affect the outcome either way...compared to if there were never a press conference?

And what every sentient person should also know is that everyone doesn't get to see all the evidence in a local thug robbery investigation, let alone regarding military intelligence.

I agree.
The spokesperson articulated horribly. But the reporter also articulated his questions horribly. The reporter kept asking for information; rather than asking for the media or type of information. For example, "Is the source a person? a document? video? Etc." Then go from there. He asked for "information." He received an answer, "Yes, we have information." He never asked about the media of the information from the clip I've seen.
Very poor work from a so-called seasoned reporter.

With the US, it could be about more than that. It could be about protecting:
a wiretap, a hidden surveillance camera, years of investigations in another case, lives of more than just the source, etc.

Just because the US "answers to you," it doesn't mean the US should reveal everything you want to know, when you want to know it. Again, that would be silly for a government to do if it wants to be effective at intelligence gathering.
Again, whether or not you should have been answered, and whether or not accountability is a factor, is a question that has to be answered 'after the fact.'

See above for my comment on how the reporter could have, and probably should have, asked more specific questions. He left wiggle room; and the spokesman took advantage.

You give our Intel apparatus way more benefit of the doubt than I'm willing to. That's good, the country needs optimists

 

[userque]

You give our Intel apparatus way more benefit of the doubt then I'm willing to. That's good, the country needs optimists

LOL

That's the only way it can work. It's a dirty job when done correctly.

A country made of unicorns and rainbows probably can do it your way ... immediately answering all reporter questions asked of it, truthfully and fully. Believing in this paradigm is what really requires optimism.

 

[Cuddles]

LOL

That's the only way it can work. It's a dirty job when done correctly.

A country made of unicorns and rainbows probably can do it your way ... immediately answering all reporter questions asked of it, truthfully and fully. Believing in this paradigm is what really requires optimism.

Wait, are you saying the country full of unicorns and rainbows is the one where you question government statements?

 

[userque]

Wait, are you saying the country full of unicorns and rainbows is the one where you question government statements?

No, it's one where the government immediately answers all reporter questions asked of it, truthfully and fully.

Your premise wasn't about the report not being allowed to asked; it was about not receiving a proper answer.

Reporters can ask all they want, whether the country is made of unicorns and rainbows, or not. The silliness is in a country revealing information that can be extremely detrimental to itself, sooner than should be released. And also in its own citizens wanting and expecting their own country to reveal sensitive information publicly and prematurely.

 

[Cuddles]

No, it's one where the government immediately answers all reporter questions asked of it, truthfully and fully.

Your premise wasn't about the report not being allowed to asked; it was about not receiving a proper answer.

Reporters can ask all they want, whether the country is made of unicorns and rainbows, or not. The silliness is in a country revealing information that can be extremely detrimental to itself, sooner than should be released. And also in its own citizens wanting and expecting their own country to reveal sensitive information publicly and prematurely.

No, the problem is not the guy not giving a "proper answer", it's giving an outright lie. His claims of "we've given you reports on actions" are nonsense, they're reporting on actions, not giving information on actions, these alleged "actions" are essentially statements by the U.S. government. "I just delivered "declassified" information" is not evidence, it's a statement. The lie is saying "we've presented evidence". "information available to us making it available to you" means "we're making this claim", that's it.

The truthful statement is to say "evidence exists, the best we can do at this time is report on the actions, "trust us"" and not try to sell these statements as "evidence"

If you don't want the citizenry to question your statements, then don't release them, because then you'll be accused of being transparent propagandists, not because we'll blindly believe it's "too premature". You get that's how propaganda works right?....you make a premature claim with no proof in hope to mold the public perception.

 

[userque]

No, the problem is not the guy not giving a "proper answer", it's giving an outright lie. His claims of "we've given you reports on actions" are nonsense, they're reporting on actions, not giving information on actions, these alleged "actions" are essentially statements by the U.S. government. "I just delivered "declassified" information" is not evidence, it's a statement. The lie is saying "we've presented evidence". "information available to us making it available to you" means "we're making this claim", that's it.

The truthful statement is to say "evidence exists, the best we can do at this time is report on the actions, "trust us"" and not try to sell these statements as "evidence"

Yeah, again, he spoke horribly, and so did the reporter.

Hard to lie about giving you something that I never gave you, when all you have to do is ask for another copy. I suspect this is merely a failure to communicate, as I've described previously.

Whether so or not, I don't see enough to conclude he was lying, versus bumbling and misspeaking. Too soon to tell.

A distinction without a difference. He wasn't going to reveal the sources, whether he communicated that properly or not; whether the reporter asked specifically or not.

Much ado about nothing, imo.

If you don't want the citizenry to question your statements,

Again, questions are fine. Intelligence spokespersons should know what can, and can't be revealed.

then don't release them, because then you'll be accused of being transparent propagandists, not because we'll blindly believe it's "too premature". You get that's how propaganda works right?....you make a premature claim with no proof in hope to mold the public perception.

I don't condone these sorts of shenanigans. Again, we can't currently conclude this is what was happening in this case. Again, all the reporter had to do was ask to be given another copy, and then perhaps they would have discovered they had a failure to communicate.

Either release the information because it's safe to do so; or not--because it's not safe to do so. Doing this, and only this, over time, should foster trust with the anti-secrets folks. That's all you can do, going forward.

But you don't release sensitive information prematurely to appease armchair intelligence pundits.

 

[Cuddles]

But you don't release sensitive information prematurely to appease armchair intelligence pundits.

Well that's the thing, you can't on one hand acknowledge "WMDs" was a proveable lie, and on the other chastise the public as "armchair intelligence anti-secret pundits" for not trusting a proven liar.

 

[userque]

Well that's the thing, you can't on one hand acknowledge "WMDs" was a proveable lie, and on the other chastise the public as "armchair intelligence anti-secret pundits" for not trusting a proven liar.

Quote where I chastised them.

They are, in fact, armchair intelligence pundits.

It's a different question as to whether one believes that they should be rebuked or reprimanded. [I made no such assertions.]

Also, I never said they should trust the US government. I did say that the US government needs to do better going forward to foster trust. IOW, I put the onus on the government to fix the mistrust.

 

[Cuddles]

Quote where I chastised them.

View attachment 277412

They are, in fact, armchair intelligence pundits.

It's a different question as to whether one believes that they should be rebuked or reprimanded.

Also, I never said they should trust the US government. I did say that the US government needs to do better going forward to foster trust. IOW, I put the onus on the government to fix the mistrust.

Well, minimizing/patronizing healthy skepticism as "armchair intelligence/anti-secret punditry" may not be chastising, but it rings close enough.

And I agree the onus is on the government, in fact probably said as much on the first/second post about the presser.

 

[userque]

Well, minimizing/patronizing healthy skepticism as "armchair intelligence/anti-secret punditry" may not be chastising, but it rings close enough.

I'm all for healthy skepticism.

But healthy skepticism is not calling for the US to make public sensitive information prematurely.

One can be skeptical, yet also wanting and letting the system of checks and balances play out as it was designed to do.

My near-chastisement was directed towards a particular incident, not armchair pundits in general. It doesn't apply to any armchair intelligence pundits out there who don't agree that the US should immediately and fully answer all sensitive questions asked of it.

IOW, I spoke my opinion, as to what they were believing/saying/doing, not simply because of their role as pundits. I would say the same about anyone advocating for the premature release of sensitive information even if their online activity didn't rise to the level of "pundit."

Again, my near-chastisement was directed toward the action, not a group of people. Since people doing the actions I speak of are typically armchair pundits, I mentioned them to paint a clearer picture for the reader ... meaning an unqualified person giving under-informed opinions. I could've also said 'armchair pundits and others,' for example.