Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #101  
Old 10-30-2019, 12:23 PM
QuickSilver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 19,358
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
So now you're mad that he held a press conference?
Weren't you embarrassed?
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.
  #102  
Old 10-30-2019, 12:25 PM
begbert2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 13,498
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
So now you're mad that he held a press conference?
I didn't see the conference - was this the one where the stated openly that he withheld the information because he thought the democrats would betray our country?

Because if so, then yep; I'm mad because he held a press conference. Without the press conference he would have still been hallucinatorially withholding information due to partisan beliefs about imaginary traitors, but if I didn't know about it I couldn't be mad about it, now could I?
  #103  
Old 10-30-2019, 12:28 PM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 14,961
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuickSilver View Post
Weren't you embarrassed?
About what? I'm pretty sure the answer is 'no', but I don't even know what you're asking about. The press conference? Why would I be embarrassed about that?
  #104  
Old 10-30-2019, 12:57 PM
QuickSilver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 19,358
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
About what? I'm pretty sure the answer is 'no', but I don't even know what you're asking about. The press conference? Why would I be embarrassed about that?
How could you not be embarrassed? It was a flaming disaster from, "Aboo........ Bakaar........." and went downhill from there.
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.
  #105  
Old 10-30-2019, 01:09 PM
Eonwe's Avatar
Eonwe is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Burlington VT
Posts: 8,645
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
For the record, I don't think the D's would have.

That being said, consider it from Trump's viewpoint: He's the most polarizing president in decades, Democratic opposition to his presidency has been intense from Day 1 of his presidency, there are numerous Democrats calling for his impeachment, there have been numerous leaks in his administration already, it would be a (short-lived) PR triumph for him for al-Baghdadi to be killed, Democrats have traditionally been perceived as the more anti-war party, Trump knows many of his opponents wouldn't want him to get a PR boost of any sort, there is no practical benefit to telling the Congressional D's (there's nothing they could say or do that would help the operation,) it gives some spiteful satisfaction for him to stiff Pelosi and Schumer this way, and if he can brag afterwards that he did not inform the D's about the upcoming operation, he gets a big win in the eyes of his supporting base, who would perceive it as a "burn" moment that jabs the D's. On the flip side, if he does inform the D's, and one of them leaks it to the press, then Trump would be lambasted by his own supporters, and denied a foreign-policy triumph. With all these factors, why would Trump inform the D's about the upcoming military mission?
Well, all you're saying there is, basically, if you think congressional Democrats are traitors, then of course it's realistic to be afraid that they would intentionally leak info about an upcoming military action to the press.

This is not a tautology, but something similar. Of course if X is true about someone, than it's reasonable to be afraid that they'll do something that people who are X do.


To paint an analogy:

If I assume that black people are criminals, of course it's reasonable for me to avoid them, or call the police on them any moment I see a black person who looks "up to something".

But it turns out that the assumptions are not reasonable, and so, even though my actions would have been reasonable (maybe; this is a loose analogy for the sake of not using variables. I'm not intending to get into a deep debate about analogical precision) if my assumptions were true, the fact that my assumptions were false (black people are not by definition criminal) means that my actions were also unreasonable.

Regardless of what Trump thinks, there is no good reason to believe that congressional Dems are traitorous, or that they would sacrifice the safety or success of a military mission in order to deny Trump his hugely-important PR win.

Trump's perspective on this whole story (if we take it at face value) is unrealistic and unreasonable.
  #106  
Old 10-30-2019, 01:44 PM
begbert2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 13,498
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eonwe View Post
Trump's perspective on this whole story (if we take it at face value) is unrealistic and unreasonable.
There are really only three scenarios:

1) Trump delusionally thinks that the Democrats in question are literally traitors.

2) Trump knows that the Democrats aren't traitors, and this whole thing is just him being a deliberate asshole and/or deliberately trying to sow societal unrest by convincing his followers that the Democrats are literally traitors.

3) The Democrats literally are traitors.
  #107  
Old 10-30-2019, 02:53 PM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 14,961
Quote:
Originally Posted by begbert2 View Post
I didn't see the conference - was this the one where the stated openly that he withheld the information because he thought the democrats would betray our country?

Because if so, then yep; I'm mad because he held a press conference. Without the press conference he would have still been hallucinatorially withholding information due to partisan beliefs about imaginary traitors, but if I didn't know about it I couldn't be mad about it, now could I?
You are confused about the facts. President Trump never "stated openly that he withheld the information because he thought the democrats would betray our country" at the press conference. AFAIK, this is the relevant portion of the press conference:

Quote:
Q And have you notified the congressional leaders about this? Pelosi? Mitch McConnell?

THE PRESIDENT: We’ve notified some. Others are being notified now, as I speak. We were going to notify them last night but we decided not to do that because Washington leaks like I’ve never seen before. There’s nothing — there’s no country in the world that leaks like we do. And Washington is a leaking machine. And I told my people we will not notify them until the — our great people are out. Not just in, but out. I don’t want to have them greeted with firepower like you wouldn’t believe.

So we were able to get in. It was top secret. It was kept. There were no leaks, no nothing. The only people that knew were the few people that I dealt with. And again, Mark Milley and the Joint Chiefs of Staff were incredible. We had some tremendous backup. Robert O’Brien, Secretary Esper, Secretary Pompeo. Pence, I told you, he was great. There’s a very small group of people that knew about this. We had very, very few people. A leak — a leak could have cost the death of all of them.
It requires quite a bit of partisan spin on the above quote to reach an interpretation like you gave.
  #108  
Old 10-30-2019, 03:07 PM
begbert2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 13,498
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
It requires quite a bit of partisan spin on the above quote to reach an interpretation like you gave.
Thanks for the quote. It shows that it doesn't require quite a bit of partisan spin to reach an interpretation like I gave.

Trump's argument was that Wahington leaks like a sieve, and thus he couldn't tell people or the soldiers would get killed. Now at a glance this sounds almost reasonable - one of Trump's big problems in life is that his underlings have repeatedly decided to tell people when he breaks laws. Those are leaks, and much leaking is occurring. This all sounds almost reasonable.

Until you remember that he only excluded democrats, and happily told republicans. This demonstrates that when he said his concern was leaks he was full of shit, because it's not like the leaks that Trump suffers are all coming from democrats.

So let's pretend that you've read the above paragraph. That leaves two options:
1) He is of the opinion that the democrats would have specifically leaked the information while the republicans wouldn't, specifically because he believes they were traitors.

2) Literally all of his words are lies once again and must be disregarded, and thus we have no information whatsoever about why he excluded the democrats. This option is what expands the possibilities from "He thinks they were traitors" and "He is pretending they are traitors just to slander them" to things like "he's just a compete asshole" and such.
  #109  
Old 10-30-2019, 03:07 PM
RitterSport's Avatar
RitterSport is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 3,550
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
You are confused about the facts. President Trump never "stated openly that he withheld the information because he thought the democrats would betray our country" at the press conference. AFAIK, this is the relevant portion of the press conference:



It requires quite a bit of partisan spin on the above quote to reach an interpretation like you gave.
Looks like the article that started this thread could use to be updated. Since only the Democrats were complaining about not being briefed, that's what CNN went with -- McConnell wouldn't say either way, so CNN had nothing to go on there.

So, OP, should we shut this thread down? Seems like Trump didn't let anyone know ahead of time; that is, he didn't just shut out the Democrats.

HD, somewhat off-topic, I read the article and John Boehner claims he was briefed multiple times on the Bin Laden raid, so there's some conflict there with your earlier cite. I don't care enough to track down the truth, and it would be a hijack here to get into that.
  #110  
Old 10-30-2019, 03:08 PM
RitterSport's Avatar
RitterSport is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 3,550
Quote:
Originally Posted by begbert2 View Post
Thanks for the quote. It shows that it doesn't require quite a bit of partisan spin to reach an interpretation like I gave.

Trump's argument was that Wahington leaks like a sieve, and thus he couldn't tell people or the soldiers would get killed. Now at a glance this sounds almost reasonable - one of Trump's big problems in life is that his underlings have repeatedly decided to tell people when he breaks laws. Those are leaks, and much leaking is occurring. This all sounds almost reasonable.

Until you remember that he only excluded democrats, and happily told republicans. This demonstrates that when he said his concern was leaks he was full of shit, because it's not like the leaks that Trump suffers are all coming from democrats.

So let's pretend that you've read the above paragraph. That leaves two options:
1) He is of the opinion that the democrats would have specifically leaked the information while the republicans wouldn't, specifically because he believes they were traitors.

2) Literally all of his words are lies once again and must be disregarded, and thus we have no information whatsoever about why he excluded the democrats. This option is what expands the possibilities from "He thinks they were traitors" and "He is pretending they are traitors just to slander them" to things like "he's just a compete asshole" and such.
It is apparently not the case that he only excluded the Dems. See earlier cites in this thread.
  #111  
Old 10-30-2019, 03:11 PM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 14,961
Quote:
Originally Posted by begbert2 View Post
... Until you remember that he only excluded democrats, and happily told republicans. ...
This is false. He didn't notify either Republicans nor Democrats prior to or during the raid. After the raid was concluded, but prior to the press conference, he told a few Republicans. Is that what you're sore about?
  #112  
Old 10-30-2019, 03:16 PM
begbert2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 13,498
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
This is false. He didn't notify either Republicans nor Democrats prior to or during the raid. After the raid was concluded, but prior to the press conference, he told a few Republicans. Is that what you're sore about?
I accept the altered information. I had not noticed it before.

I am less sore. It's still a little off-putting that in the after-period he only informed his buddies - it smells like an attempt to get the dems caught by surprise or something. But it's not as bad a selectively excluding them as the only possible traitors, though it could be even less of a thing than that - maybe the dems just aren't in his gossip circle. (Okay, they certainly aren't in his gossip circle.)

I shall bow out. As bad things Trump has done go, this is small potatoes. I'm sure there's something better to yell about around here than this.
  #113  
Old 10-30-2019, 03:24 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is online now
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 62,953
Speaking of people that were not told about the raid before(or during) it happened, apparently you can add White House Chief-Of-Staff Mulvaney to the list.
Quote:
The White House chief of staff typically would be central to such a momentous gambit for a president, coordinating logistics, public statements and notifications of congressional leaders and allies. Bill Daley, who was White House chief of staff during the bin Laden raid, was seated next to then-President Barack Obama as he monitored the raid in a secure White House room with a small group of senior officials.
Andy Card, former President George W. Bush's longtime chief of staff, said exclusion of Mulvaney from a moment of such magnitude in the presidency is difficult to grasp because the White House chief of staff typically would be in national security meetings leading up to it and tasked with coordinating with other top officials on everything from a communications strategy to a plan in case the raid failed.
  #114  
Old 10-30-2019, 03:36 PM
QuickSilver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 19,358
Mulvaney is on Trump's enemies list because he didn't lie through his teeth at the recent press conference. He said, "Get over it", instead of flat denying the quid pro quo questions. He is said to have been on thin ice leading up to that accidental admission.
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.

Last edited by QuickSilver; 10-30-2019 at 03:36 PM.
  #115  
Old 10-30-2019, 04:34 PM
RitterSport's Avatar
RitterSport is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 3,550
OP, turns out your thread title is really misleading. Can you request a change from a moderator? It probably should read:

Fear of Congressional Leaders leaking Baghdadi raid, realistic?

The answer is still, no, it's not realistic. But, Trump didn't just leave the D's out of the loop, and so this thread really went off in the wrong direction. You're injecting partisanship into a situation where there wasn't much of it.
  #116  
Old 10-30-2019, 05:32 PM
Velocity is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 15,674
Quote:
Originally Posted by RitterSport View Post
OP, turns out your thread title is really misleading. Can you request a change from a moderator? It probably should read:

Fear of Congressional Leaders leaking Baghdadi raid, realistic?

The answer is still, no, it's not realistic. But, Trump didn't just leave the D's out of the loop, and so this thread really went off in the wrong direction. You're injecting partisanship into a situation where there wasn't much of it.
Sure, sounds good.

Admins/mods, want to change the title?
  #117  
Old 10-31-2019, 01:16 PM
tmadd is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2019
Posts: 1

this is why


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UPw0f2IGH_k
  #118  
Old 10-31-2019, 01:25 PM
bobot's Avatar
bobot is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago-ish
Posts: 9,426
But what is the question?
No, really, "What?" is the question.
  #119  
Old 10-31-2019, 08:53 PM
Chingon is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: the hypersphere
Posts: 696
The point of the post wasn't really to raise a question. Think of it like a push poll of message board posts.
  #120  
Old 11-01-2019, 06:22 AM
bobot's Avatar
bobot is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago-ish
Posts: 9,426
A-ha. All I saw was a barely identified or described link, preceeded by an almost random sounding, short sentence.
  #121  
Old 11-01-2019, 06:31 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 20,017
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
It's worth noting that Boehner, House Republican leader, was briefed on the bin Laden raid before it happened, in 2011.
Why is it worth noting?
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:20 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017