China says it WILL shoot Pelosi's plane down IF she travels to Taiwan under US fighter escort

NT1440 said:
No, they’re involved in editorial direction and often turned to on the talk shows for their (agency’s) take on a given topic.
Click to expand...

But they're retired and being private citizens, now speak as knowledgeable sources, not representing any agency or official position.

Who should news agencies turn to for interpretation of complex intelligence-related matters?
 
Last edited:
citypix said:
But they're retired and being private citizens, now speak as a knowledgeable sources, not representing any agency or position.

Who should news agencies turn to for interpretation of complex intelligence matters?
Click to expand...
Don't be so naive. They're Puppet masters that control all media while still working for the Military-Industrial Complex™ in search of Endless Wars & Empire™ as they're Poking Pooh (AKA Picking on Poor China)!! ;)
 
citypix said:
But they're retired and being private citizens, now speak as knowledgeable sources, not representing any agency or official position.

Who should news agencies turn to for interpretation of complex intelligence-related matters?
Click to expand...
www.politico.com

The Spies Who Came in to the TV Studio

Former intelligence officials are enjoying second acts at television pundits. Here’s why that should bother us.
www.politico.com www.politico.com

Do you mind looking at your question again after reading this article? It’s a quick and even handed read.

I’ve engaged in good faith, so I’ll see if I get some in return. Otherwise I’m just wasting my time, and I’m in the middle of replacing an axle so idk why I’m drawn to this thread.
 
NT1440 said:
Really? You want a report in each one? The fact that the former head (John Brennan) of the CIA is actually employed as a Senior Analyst for NBC doesn’t lead you to want to look further?
Click to expand...
Yeah. My knickers can only take so much bunching.
 
NT1440 said:
www.politico.com

The Spies Who Came in to the TV Studio

Former intelligence officials are enjoying second acts at television pundits. Here’s why that should bother us.
www.politico.com www.politico.com

Do you mind looking at your question again after reading this article? It’s a quick and even handed read.

I’ve engaged in good faith, so I’ll see if I get some in return. Otherwise I’m just wasting my time, and I’m in the middle of replacing an axle so idk why I’m drawn to this thread.
Click to expand...
There is a lot of concern in that article, thanks for posting! (not snarky at this time...)
 
NT1440 said:
www.politico.com

The Spies Who Came in to the TV Studio

Former intelligence officials are enjoying second acts at television pundits. Here’s why that should bother us.
www.politico.com www.politico.com

Do you mind looking at your question again after reading this article? It’s a quick and even handed read.

I’ve engaged in good faith, so I’ll see if I get some in return. Otherwise I’m just wasting my time, and I’m in the middle of replacing an axle so idk why I’m drawn to this thread.
Click to expand...

OK, I just read it again.

Hyperbole aside, I have no problem with them helping to interpret complex intelligence-related news matters. They're clearly not sources of a particular current operation. Rather, they're highly qualified to interpret current events and offer insight and opinions based on decades of experience working in their fields at very high levels.

I don't know how the interpretation of complex intelligence-related news matters would otherwise be effected.
 
citypix said:
OK, I just read it again.

Hyperbole aside, I have no problem with them helping to interpret complex intelligence-related news matters. They're clearly not sources of a particular current operation. Rather, they're highly qualified to interpret current events and offer insight and opinions based on decades of experience working in their fields at very high levels.

I don't know how the interpretation of complex intelligence-related news matters would otherwise be effected.
Click to expand...
Media outlets need experts for various subject areas. Is it possible that former security officials still have some personal agenda? Sure, but even among the list of names provided, you have people of various agencies under different administrations with quite a variety of different philosophies. You also listed a low-level FBI agent who only served 4 years such as Asha Rangappa next to James Clapper and Michael Hayden. If you want to think Clapper and Hayden are still carrying a torch for the agencies they led and pushing an agenda, I can see that is possible (Although I think it’s more likely with Clapper than Hayden.).

But somebody like Rangappa has no inside information or connections to agency heads that would indicate she has any similar agenda.

I do take issue when reporters bring on experts and don’t question them skeptically enough. But these hires of former national security officials seem like decisions made not to push a narrative, but to have knowledgeable people to turn to when international affairs make the headlines. I don’t really watch MSNBC or CNN; I stick to the PBS News Hour, BBC, and NPR. I have to say that the BBC is the most adversarial in their questioning when it comes to such issues. But PBS and NPR are both pretty good as well, depending on which reporters cover it. I especially like it when PBS brings on 2 experts with different points of view.
 
SuperMatt said:
Media outlets need experts for various subject areas. Is it possible that former security officials still have some personal agenda? Sure, but even among the list of names provided, you have people of various agencies under different administrations with quite a variety of different philosophies. You also listed a low-level FBI agent who only served 4 years such as Asha Rangappa next to James Clapper and Michael Hayden. If you want to think Clapper and Hayden are still carrying a torch for the agencies they led and pushing an agenda, I can see that is possible (Although I think it’s more likely with Clapper than Hayden.).

But somebody like Rangappa has no inside information or connections to agency heads that would indicate she has any similar agenda.

I do take issue when reporters bring on experts and don’t question them skeptically enough. But these hires of former national security officials seem like decisions made not to push a narrative, but to have knowledgeable people to turn to when international affairs make the headlines. I don’t really watch MSNBC or CNN; I stick to the PBS News Hour, BBC, and NPR. I have to say that the BBC is the most adversarial in their questioning when it comes to such issues. But PBS and NPR are both pretty good as well, depending on which reporters cover it. I especially like it when PBS brings on 2 experts with different points of view.
Click to expand...

Well stated.

I think the issue might be they're getting paid. If I were in their position with 2-3 decades of relevant experience in the intelligence business and could breakdown extremely complex matters so that the average citizen can understand whatever issue is being discussed, I'd certainly demand getting paid.

PRS, NPR, and BBC...my go to news sources as well. I wake up to and go to sleep listening to NPR on my clock radio. And if I'm not doing anything else during the day, watch the PBS News Hour and Amanpour and Co. All outstanding journalism.
 
They didn't shoot down her plane on the way in.......I'm sure there are republicans who were hoping they would ;)

But they'll have another chance on her way out
 
She came in to Taiwan on a US military transport. It was reported there were Chinese warplanes flying up to the Taiwan Straight dividing line.
 
Pelosi should play James Brown's Talkin' Loud and Sayin' Nothing for the CCP

Like a dull knife
Just ain't cutting
Just talking loud
Then saying nothing

Just saying nothing
Just saying nothing
You can't tell me
How to run my life down
You can't tell me
How to keep my business sound

You can't tell me
What I'm doing wrong
When you keep driving and
Singing that same old money song
Click to expand...
 
What is she doing there? I don’t mean from a pageantry perspective, I’m asking what was the point and why did this have to be done now?
 
NT1440 said:
What is she doing there? I don’t mean from a pageantry perspective, I’m asking what was the point and why did this have to be done now?
Click to expand...

From Reuters:
"America’s solidarity with the 23 million people of Taiwan is more important today than ever, as the world faces a choice between autocracy and democracy," Pelosi said in the statement.
 
There's something amusing about war being declared over Nancy Pelosi. The modern-day Helen of Troy? :sneaky:
 
Can somebody explain why China is so hellbent on absorbing Taiwan? What does Taiwan provide China that China is incapable of doing without them?

Probably is, but I hope it's not just some Isreal/Palestine "complicated history" level horse shit.
 
citypix said:
From Reuters:
"America’s solidarity with the 23 million people of Taiwan is more important today than ever, as the world faces a choice between autocracy and democracy," Pelosi said in the statement.
Click to expand...
So pageantry.

Seems worth inflaming tensions *now* over. 🙄

America also doesn’t even remotely function as a democracy (having elections doesn’t make one a democracy) in this day and age so this is a bit rich if a statement coming from the person who protected the war criminal Bush from impeachment (ignoring of course that she was also read in to the torture program).

These are our heroes of democracy? Please.
 
Chew Toy McCoy said:
Can somebody explain why China is so hellbent on absorbing Taiwan? What does Taiwan provide China that China is incapable of doing without them?

Probably is, but I hope it's not just some Isreal/Palestine "complicated history" level horse shit.
Click to expand...
Other than it being covered all of a sudden in the news the last two months, can anyone cite anything China has done recently that indicates any change in posture?
 
NT1440 said:
View attachment 16344
Jake Sullivan.

There’s plenty of work going on behind the scenes to shape your average American’s geopolitical understanding of what’s going on in the world.

Unfortunately it’s very clear that our domestic propaganda clearly works marvelously for those unaware of what having “former” intelligence officials at the heads of all the major news agencies actually means.
Click to expand...


We do have a nice long history of war suddenly saving/distracting us from some major economic crisis. It seems we’re pretty primed for that “solution” at the moment. It also seems China is in similar need with their economic situation. I guess it’s just unfortunate we’ve run out of small-time players to serve this purpose.
 
Back
Top