NYT tells trump to stick it up his butt (paraphrased, naturally)

[butters]

threatening the press for "unpatriotic" reporting of an acknowledged release? is trump's America the new North Korea, Russia perhaps?

The Times reported on an early Pentagon analysis saying the strikes on Iran’s nuclear sites would merely delay its nuclear program, undercutting Trump’s claim that the attack was a knockout blow. CNN was the first to report on the leaked contradictory intel and said it had also been threatened with legal action.

The letter from attorney Alejandro Brito, the Times reported, ordered the outlet to “retract and apologize” for its “false,” defamatory” and “unpatriotic” article due to the alleged damage to Trump’s reputation.

Noting that the administration had confirmed the existence of the report, the Gray Lady hit back hard.

“No retraction is needed,” the paper’s lawyer, David McCraw, wrote back. “No apology will be forthcoming. We told the truth to the best of our ability. We will continue to do so.”

good on ya, mate *nods*

apparently, CNN also 'responded to the letter by rejecting the claims in it' but did not make that response public like the NYT did. *clucks*

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...1&cvid=07a5874a64424018d4f93758d97b99b8&ei=48

 

[HisArpy]

Yeah, about that LEAKED preliminary report intended for internal use only...

 

[Bn2f]

Yeah, about that LEAKED preliminary report intended for internal use only...

Whataboutit?

 

[glamorilla]

Whataboutit?

It says youre the afterbirth of stupidity.

 

[Saint_Ann]

What's the punishment for treason?

 

[Rockymtnman]

Yeah, about that LEAKED preliminary report intended for internal use only...

So? We have the absolute right to know if it worked. If it did great. If it didn’t then we need to know the whys and how’s. I personally don’t think it was a bad idea as long as it wasn’t a waste of tax payer money.

 

[dmallord]

What's the punishment for treason?

Depends. What kind did you have in mind?
Letting out classified attack plans in a Signal Chat?
Getting a heads up that the attack plan results were not 'obliterated?'

 

[stxjimmy]

threatening the press for "unpatriotic" reporting of an acknowledged release? is trump's America the new North Korea, Russia perhaps?

Heading that way, full steam ahead!

 

[HisArpy]

So? We have the absolute right to know if it worked. If it did great. If it didn’t then we need to know the whys and how’s. I personally don’t think it was a bad idea as long as it wasn’t a waste of tax payer money.

The point is that the intel assessment was preliminary and it was unlawfully leaked in an effort to attempt to damage both the outcome of the operation as well as the President.

When called on this, the media instantly went into defensive mode and started casting aspersions while engaging in CYA bloviating.

Tell me; where in any of that do you find truth or honor or integrity?

 

[RobDownSouth]

The point is that the intel assessment was preliminary and it was unlawfully leaked in an effort to attempt to damage both the outcome of the operation as well as the President.

How can an initial report on the outcome of the operation damage the actual outcome of the operation if the operation already occurred?

America got a glimpse of the damage assessment before Trump's politburo was able to massage the numbers and spin the report into an "unqualified success". Trump had already announced the rousing "success" of the mission that Only He Could Have Done and the DIA assessment was simply cherry picked anecdotes for Trump and Heggy to spew on social media.

 

[HisArpy]

How can an initial report on the outcome of the operation damage the actual outcome of the operation if the operation already occurred?

America got a glimpse of the damage assessment before Trump's politburo was able to massage the numbers and spin the report into an "unqualified success". Trump had already announced the rousing "success" of the mission that Only He Could Have Done and the DIA assessment was simply cherry picked anecdotes for Trump and Heggy to spew on social media.

It was a PRELIMINARY assessment. It was based on incomplete information and subject to revision as more information comes in.

That it was leaked in an attempt to discredit the effectiveness of the strikes is rather obvious. Unless you're a mealworm.

 

[Bray123]

Let's have an enquiry.

Not into whether Iran had the ability to make a nuclear weapon, or whether it has the right to defend itself against belligerent countries that do have such weapons.
Not into Trump's warning to Iran to move their nuclear material out of danger before the bombing.
Not into whether Trump should have sought Congressional approval before starting a war.
Not into Trump's invitation to Iran to retaliate against US bases in the area.
Not into the assessment of the raid as 'total obliteration' of Iran's nuclear capability or whether that should read 'delayed by a few weeks'.
Not to find out where the nuclear materials are now located.
Not into whether Russia still supports their long-term regional ally Iran or has switched their interest to controlling what the US President does.
Not into whether the Administration, led by fired Fox News hosts, will lie to Congress when challenged.

Let's have the enquiry into who told us the above.

 

[Bray123]

It was a PRELIMINARY assessment. It was based on incomplete information and subject to revision as more information comes in.

That it was leaked in an attempt to discredit the effectiveness of the strikes is rather obvious. Unless you're a mealworm.

Trump's announcement that Iran's facilities had been 'totally obliterated' was a preliminary assessment based on incomplete information?

 

[Bray123]

Mmm, OK.

The Obama administration obtained the records of 20 Associated Press office phone lines and reporters’ home and cell phones, seizing them without notice, as part of an investigation into the disclosure of information about a foiled al-Qaida terrorist plot.

You equate that with someone pointing out that Trump lied when he said that an operation was successful when it was a miserable failure.

 

[Rockymtnman]

The point is that the intel assessment was preliminary and it was unlawfully leaked in an effort to attempt to damage both the outcome of the operation as well as the President.

When called on this, the media instantly went into defensive mode and started casting aspersions while engaging in CYA bloviating.

Tell me; where in any of that do you find truth or honor or integrity?

So how exactly does it change the outcome? It either did what was intended, didn’t or somewhere in between. After the fact reporting, preliminary or not has no bearing on what happened BEFORE. Per usual the orange turd lies about the efficacy, gets called out, then whines like the little cunt he is about mean and awful press and you can’t wait to come here after gobbling all of trump daddy’s cum and spew the talking points back at us.

 

[MajorRewrite]

1. Trump administration makes an assessment
2. Trump administration leaks the assessment
3. Media reports assessment
4. Trump administration threatens to sue media for reporting Trump administration assessment in an attempt to intimidate and silence critics
5. Media laugh at Trump administration
6. MAGA sheep cry treason

Authoritarianism and blind loyalty on parade.

 

[dmallord]

The point is that the intel assessment was preliminary and it was unlawfully leaked in an effort to attempt to damage both the outcome of the operation as well as the President.

When called on this, the media instantly went into defensive mode and started casting aspersions while engaging in CYA bloviating.

Tell me; where in any of that do you find truth or honor or integrity?

The press has a duty to report facts as they become available, especially in evolving situations. Preliminary intelligence assessments, like the one leaked, are by nature subject to change. That’s not dishonor—that’s process.

You ask where truth and integrity can be found? Perhaps the better question is why the President chose to declare total success—“obliterated,” his word—before those preliminary findings were even fully assessed.

Let’s consider a few points:

• Was the intel report real? Yes.
• Was it labeled preliminary? Yes.
• Did the press report it as such? They did.
• Did the administration immediately go on the attack against that reporting? Also yes.
• Did Anderson Cooper and others accurately expose the contradictions in official statements? They did.
• And does the President have a habit of overstatement and self-promotion? That pattern speaks for itself.

This isn’t about rooting for or against any side. It’s about recognizing that the press reported accurately based on what was known at the time—while the President rushed to claim a victory narrative before the facts had settled. That’s not leadership. That’s spin you also usually buy into as well.

Who's here bloviating over the matter? [You are.]

 

[RobDownSouth]

It was a PRELIMINARY assessment. It was based on incomplete information and subject to revision as more information comes in.

That it was leaked in an attempt to discredit the effectiveness of the strikes is rather obvious. Unless you're a mealworm.

Repetition and ALL CAPS does not make your weaksauce argument any more valid.

Ironically (or maybe not ironically, one can never tell with you), you're using two techniques from the old 1950s CIA regime change manual, specifically the chapter that dealt with "making your point in less developed countries".

1. Repeat the same argument over and over, allowing it to be internalized by the huddled masses.
2. Raise your voice (i.e. ALL CAPS online) to show your opponents that this should be considered VERY IMPORTANT by everyone.

 

[HisArpy]

So how exactly does it change the outcome? It either did what was intended, didn’t or somewhere in between. After the fact reporting, preliminary or not has no bearing on what happened BEFORE. Per usual the orange turd lies about the efficacy, gets called out, then whines like the little cunt he is about mean and awful press and you can’t wait to come here after gobbling all of trump daddy’s cum and spew the talking points back at us.

I don't know what planet you're on, but you really need to step back and reexamine your facts.

The report was a preliminary report. It's real and it exists to be a fundamental starting point for BDA (Battle Damage Assessment). It's not the final BDA, it's the starting point for the analysis.

Whoever leaked the report did so with the intent to not use the assessment for the purpose it was intended for, analysis and fact finding, but to attack the credibility and performance of the pilots on the mission as well as the President.

You, like the media, couldn't stomach that the mission was successful so you've now taken that leaked information as if it is the ultimate end finding of what occurred. You're not doing it to see about improving military performance (the purpose of the report) but to try to FALSELY claim that the mission wasn't a success and that it's all Trump's fault that it wasn't a success, despite the final analysis saying the exact opposite.

Basically, you're so deep into your hate you have to manufacture reasons for your hate. You support people who break the law in order to fuel your hate. And you rely on twisted media reports on events as further evidence to justify your hate.

Then you take that steaming ball of bullshit and bring it here to try and use it to gloat about how you were right about Trump even though in the end you're wrong. Only you can't see or admit it.

Because you live on lies and hate.

 

[Rightguide]

Yeah, about that LEAKED preliminary report intended for internal use only...

It was classified as Top Secret as well. So somebody needs to go to jail.

 

[73Seahawks]

threatening the press for "unpatriotic" reporting of an acknowledged release? is trump's America the new North Korea, Russia perhaps?





good on ya, mate *nods*

apparently, CNN also 'responded to the letter by rejecting the claims in it' but did not make that response public like the NYT did. *clucks*

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...1&cvid=07a5874a64424018d4f93758d97b99b8&ei=48

Trump's a lame duck and this is his FINAL term as President of the United States. If Democrats win back control of the US House of Representatives in 2026, his agenda gets BLOCKED.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Saturday Drinking Game: Every time Derpy The Pettifogger squeals "preliminary" in this thread, you take a shot of the libation of your choice.

We all should be righteously drunk by sundown.

 

[dmallord]

I don't know what planet you're on, but you really need to step back and reexamine your facts.

He was accurate, so no need to reexamine them.

The report was a preliminary report. It's real and it exists to be a fundamental starting point for BDA (Battle Damage Assessment). It's not the final BDA, it's the starting point for the analysis.

That was made known when the reporters released the info on television. You missed the news? Facts stated. Preliminary noted also by reporters.

Whoever leaked the report did so with the intent to not use the assessment for the purpose it was intended for, analysis and fact finding, but to attack the credibility and performance of the pilots on the mission as well as the President.

Supposition and unknown at this time. You just did what you claimed reporters did: made an unsubstantiated claim. Irony.

You, like the media, couldn't stomach that the mission was successful so you've now taken that leaked information as if it is the ultimate end finding of what occurred. You're not doing it to see about improving military performance (the purpose of the report) but to try to FALSELY claim that the mission wasn't a success and that it's all Trump's fault that it wasn't a success, despite the final analysis saying the exact opposite.

Not one media report claimed it wasn't a success, nor that it was Trump's fault. [More MDS. (Media Deranged Syndrome)] There hasn't been a final analysis. Claims that go to bias, Mr. Lawyer.

Basically, you're so deep into your hate you have to manufacture reasons for your hate. You support people who break the law in order to fuel your hate. And you rely on twisted media reports on events as further evidence to justify your hate.

To quote a forum member: "So much hate." It just sticks in your craw, and you are choking on it.

Then you take that steaming ball of bullshit and bring it here to try and use it to gloat about how you were right about Trump even though in the end you're wrong. Only you can't see or admit it.

No. YOu have that backwards; you can't admit they are correct.

Because you live on lies and hate.

Supposition and hateful response.
#30

 

[Bray123]

It was classified as Top Secret as well. So somebody needs to go to jail.

You mean like inviting a journalist onto an insecure app to discuss active war plans?

But how can lies be Top Secret? Trump said it was lies, or was he lying when he said it was lies?