US Politics Mega-thread - Page 6989

Last month's deadly commando raid in Yemen, which cost the lives of a U.S. Navy SEAL and a number of children, has so far yielded no significant intelligence, U.S. officials told NBC News.

Although Pentagon officials have said the raid produced "actionable intelligence," senior officials who spoke to NBC News said they were unaware of any, even as the father of the dead SEAL questioned the premise of the raid in an interview with the Miami Herald published Sunday.

"Why at this time did there have to be this stupid mission when it wasn't even barely a week into [President Trump's] administration?" Bill Owens, whose youngest son Ryan was killed during the raid, said. "For two years prior ... everything was missiles and drones (in Yemen)....Now all of a sudden we had to make this grand display?"

A senior Congressional official briefed on the matter said the Trump administration has yet to explain what prompted the rare use of American ground troops in Yemen, but he said he was not aware of any new threat from al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, the al Qaeda affiliate that was targeted.

The official, and others briefed on the matter who spoke to NBC News, echoed the remarks of Sen. John McCain, R.-Ariz., that the raid was designed to kill or capture one or more militants — something the military did not initially acknowledge.

Instead, Pentagon officials called it a "site exploitation mission" designed to gather intelligence. Defense officials later did not dispute McCain's characterization, saying they were hoping to kill or capture certain militants, though they declined to name them. NBC News and other media outlets have reported that Sheikh Abdel-Raouf al-Dhahab was among the dead. The Pentagon calls him an al Qaeda leader; the Yemeni government disagrees.

Plans for the raid were begun during the Obama administration, but Obama officials declined to sign off on what officials described as a significant escalation in Yemen. Just five days in, Trump greenlighted the mission.

"Certainly the Obama administration, particularly by the end of its eight-year run, was very cautious in moving forward with any kind of military activity," retired Adm. James Stavridis, a former NATO commander and current NBC News security analyst, said. "A new administration I think naturally is going to be spring-loaded to move out and demonstrate something."

The White House has repeatedly called the Yemen mission a success. White House spokesman Sean Spicer said on Feb. 8 that anyone "who undermines the success of that raid owes an apology and [does] a disservice to the life of Chief Owens."

"We gathered an unbelievable amount of intelligence that will prevent the potential deaths or attacks on American soil," said Spicer.

A Defense Department official also pushed back Monday afternoon, saying the raid has yielded "a significant amount" of intelligence.

But the only example the military has provided turned out to be an old bomb-making video that was of no current value.

On Monday, Spicer addressed the remarks of Bill Owens, whose son died.

"I can tell him that on behalf of the president, his son died a hero and the information that he was able to help obtain through that raid, as I said before, is going to save American lives," he said. "The mission was successful in helping prevent a future attack or attacks on this nation."

Multiple senior officials told NBC News they have not seen evidence to support that claim.

In addition to the death of Ryan Owens, six other U.S. service members were wounded. And at least 25 civilians were killed, including nine children under the age of 13, according to the Bureau of Investigative Journalism. One of them was the 8-year-old daughter of U.S.-born al Qaeda cleric Anwar al-Awlaki.

A Pentagon official told NBC News today the Pentagon does not dispute these numbers.

A $70 million U.S. aircraft also was destroyed. The Pentagon already has at least three investigations into the raid underway.

On February 28 2017 23:58 SoSexy wrote:
Never forget that '85% chances of Clinton winning' on the NYT website before the counting of votes started.

On March 01 2017 00:01 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Why do you think Republicans would benefit more from a first-past-the-post election system or a proportional EC vote allocation system? Just curious.

On March 01 2017 00:01 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:


The Oscars just happened so Trump has probably been way too busy to deal with ISIS stuff right now.

Why do you think Republicans would benefit more from a first-past-the-post election system or a proportional EC vote allocation system? Just curious.

On February 28 2017 23:58 SoSexy wrote:
Never forget that '85% chances of Clinton winning' on the NYT website before the counting of votes started.

On February 28 2017 23:58 SoSexy wrote:
Never forget that '85% chances of Clinton winning' on the NYT website before the counting of votes started.

On February 28 2017 23:26 LightSpectra wrote:
Elimination of the EC is a worthy cause but it's never going to happen. There's too many people who think it'll turn the USA into California's colony.

I think eliminating FPTP is a more feasible goal, since you could sell it to both left-wingers and right-wingers that it means you could vote in more left-wing/more right-wing candidates than the scum you're getting right now.

The White House’s deep involvement in hiring decisions across the government is frustrating some of President Donald Trump’s Cabinet secretaries, spurring early tussles between the president’s advisers and leaders of federal agencies.

White House officials have sometimes rejected candidates who have previously criticized the president — even if they boast sterling credentials or have the endorsement of top Republicans. And they’ve often imposed their choices on agencies, according to more than a dozen people inside and close to the administration.

Many Cabinet nominees joined the administration believing they’d have wide latitude to pick lieutenants, but they’re beginning to realize Trump’s powerful advisers are looking over their shoulders. The White House’s approach has already slowed hiring — and the dozens of vacancies at key agencies could make it more difficult to implement some of Trump's policy proposals.

So far, Trump has nominated fewer than three dozen of the 550 most important Senate-confirmed jobs, according to an analysis by the Partnership for Public Service, a nonprofit group that advised Trump officials during the presidential transition.

On March 01 2017 00:16 Godwrath wrote:

You need to play some XCOM.

On March 01 2017 00:27 IgnE wrote:


X thing we've never done before is never gonna happen because of reasons I made up right now

But Y thing we've never done before, let me tell you, it can happen for real because of other reasons I made up right now.

Believe me on this I know what I'm talking about.

On March 01 2017 00:23 Mohdoo wrote:


What is your statistics background? Are you aware that things with a 1% chance of happening, do indeed happen every day? Its not like once something makes it past 60%, it is a guarantee.

On March 01 2017 00:27 Danglars wrote:

Politico

Stuff like this will hurt his first year. Trump's a momentum man so it could even have more impact.

On March 01 2017 00:31 LightSpectra wrote:


Yes I'm aware both are unprecedented in the USA. But I'm arguing from a sense of practicality. Half the country loves the EC because it benefits them. That argument's been fought to death and no resolution is in sight.

On the other hand, most of the population isn't exposed to alternative voting systems, so that's an undiscovered country. We don't know what the results of that proposal would be yet.

On March 01 2017 00:37 SoSexy wrote:


Indeed. But I expected one of the biggest american newspaper to have access to better resources than me at home.

On March 01 2017 00:41 Mohdoo wrote:


But that's the thing. A PhD statistician can give something an 86% chance of happening, and it does not mean it will happen. A legion of statisticians can tirelessly work to give the most accurate probability as possible, but it will always be a probability. There is no shame in something with an 86% chance of happening, not happening. Rolling snake eyes has a 2.7% chance of happening, but it happens.