It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

One More Reason Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn Shouldn't Be National Security Advisor

page: 2
8
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 17 2016 @ 08:27 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

Great Choice by President Elect Trump . A Prelude to the Opening of a Can Of Whoopass Against the Serious Threat of Radical Islam .
edit on 17-11-2016 by Zanti Misfit because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 17 2016 @ 08:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Wardaddy454

It's a little inflammatory... and? That translates to WW3? Lol. Did you sleep through the entire Cold War?



posted on Nov, 17 2016 @ 08:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Hazardous1408

Hey, it can't be much worse than electing someone who had a private email server for classified intel. Amirite?



posted on Nov, 17 2016 @ 08:43 PM
link   
The vast majority of pundits and people can't tell you who the current National Security Advisor is, or what his/her day-to-day duties are, without doing a Google search.

Democrats who complain about FLYNN, but don't know who's in the position currently, or what that position is all about, should study some more, before passing judgement. And then, it still won't matter, because Democrats are irrelevant now.



posted on Nov, 17 2016 @ 09:28 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

I can understand your opposition to someone like Bannon. I don't know enough about the man to have an opinion on him, but some of the reports on him do give me pause.

But Flynn is eminently qualified for the position. The fact that you don't like his views or some of his actions doesn't change that.

And besides - it's not official until it's announced by our President-Elect.

The media running around like chickens with their heads cut off about every rumor they hear or manufacture on their own regarding potential cabinet picks does us all a disservice.

Although I do believe the floating of both Bolton and Giuliani for Secretary of State was a deliberate leak and that neither is being seriously considered for the position. The strategy is to get everyone in the media and on the left screaming about these two, so that when they do finally announce their pick, that person will seem much less inflammatory and will get far less "bad press" so to speak.

Just my opinion...


edit on 11/17/2016 by Riffrafter because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 17 2016 @ 09:30 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

Actually, Flynn has been lobbying for his foreign and domestic clients while he's been receiving security briefings as part of Trump's team.

a reply to: carewemust

This isn't coming "from the Left" or from Democrats exclusively either. Daily Caller broke the following six days ago:

Trump’s Top Military Adviser Is Lobbying For Obscure Company With Ties To Turkish Government


An intelligence consulting firm founded by retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, Donald Trump’s top military adviser, was recently hired as a lobbyist by an obscure Dutch company with ties to Turkey’s government and its president, Recep Tayyip Erdogan.

It also raises questions about disclosure.

Flynn wrote an op-ed for The Hill on Tuesday, just before Trump’s stunning upset of Hillary Clinton, in which he heaped praise on Erdogan and called on the next president, whoever that would be, to accede his request to extradite the U.S.-based Muslim cleric Fethullah Gülen back to Turkey.



The vast majority of pundits and people can't tell you who the current National Security Advisor is, or what his/her day-to-day duties are, without doing a Google search.


You really believe the vast majority of pundits don't know who Susan Rice is? I think you might be projecting.



posted on Nov, 17 2016 @ 09:52 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

I like him! He seems to be well qualified for a National Security advisor position.



posted on Nov, 17 2016 @ 09:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Riffrafter

I think people are being interviewed like they would be in the private sector. So every time someone goes in to interview, the press floats this as the new *hot* pick for the spot.



posted on Nov, 17 2016 @ 10:03 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

"retweeting garbage from fake news sites"

Did you determine that is a fake news site? What criteria do you use? Do you require valid news sites to furnish you a certificate of honesty? Are the only valid news sites strictly MSM? I mean there was no problem with pro Hillary biased news site like CNN was there?

After the last year, I am sure there are numerous people who now consider CNN to be one of the biggest fake news sites there is.


edit on R052016-11-17T22:05:39-06:00k0511Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 17 2016 @ 10:10 PM
link   
And he tweets like a noob.

Using "U" like that? Ungh. I hate Twitter.



posted on Nov, 17 2016 @ 10:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: roaland

Cool. Sounds like a bunch of people foregoing critical thought in favor of herd instinct. That's how we continuously get the mess we get.


Critical thinkers always evaluate and work out the shortest path to an outcome. In this case, doing the opposite of what the hard left want is the short cut to success. It's a tried and trusted method developed over centuries.


WUT? No, critical thinker evaluates and works out the best possible path to an outcome. A reactionary thinker searches for the shortest.

So, doing the opposite of your "so called political enemies" is critical thinking? Tried trusted over centuries? Again, WUT?




edit on 17-11-2016 by Connector because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 17 2016 @ 10:49 PM
link   
a reply to: RickinVa

Yes, I have actually determined that True Pundit is a fake news site. I did so months ago when they (whoever "they" are, it's anonymously written and there's no contact information, no business information, nothing) claimed to have an anonymous NYPD source reporting that Clinton was wearing an "invisible" ear piece and included a grainy, scaled up picture of a shine in Clinton's ear. The hoax was quickly debunked just by looking at other pictures, videos of the debate.

They also had an "anonymous" source that claimed that Comey had called in all FBI staff and that there was going to be arrests, search warrants served, etc. None of that happened either.

In typical True Pundit form, they "broke" the Assage "drone strike" hoax with another "anonymous source." This one is a little harder to disprove as they're essentially repeating fake hearsay about a comment. Nobody every confirmed this story.

This is a pattern with True Pundit. How can an anonymous source cite an anonymous source and anyone take anything they say seriously in the first place? I could make a wordpress blog and say I was an anonymous journalist with an anonymous source claiming that there were a herd of invisible unicorns at the North Pole. People bought into True Pundit because they want to believe what they're pushing and they repost enough other material that they aggregate from other sites that it gives them a certain camouflage.

The fact that all of these fake exclusives of theirs were either debunked or like the drone story, never confirmed by anyone else, seals the deal.

I would never share anything of the sort. How can I have higher standards than the fromer DIA director and what looks to be the top candidate for National Security Advisor? That bothers me a lot.

That's without even getting into the fact that I honestly believe that he's who Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov was talking about or the conflicts of interests that are now being reported on.

I'm sure President-elect Trump can find somebody who doesn't have these questions surrounding him. What makes the swamp the swamp? Writing op-eds passionately advocating for what Erdogan wants without disclosing that you're being paid to lobby by somebody with deep connections to the man and his regime, seems to be a legitimate concern. Getting paid to be a Russian propaganda prop seems pretty swampy to me.



(and yes, that's Jill Stein in the foreground too smh)

Smells bad. Looks bad. Maybe there's nothing going on untoward but why chance it at all when there are candidates who are at least as qualified, who will be onboard with Trump, etc? Just seems like a bad move.



posted on Nov, 17 2016 @ 10:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Riffrafter

" Although I do believe the floating of both Bolton and Giuliani for Secretary of State was a deliberate leak and that neither is being seriously considered for the position. The strategy is to get everyone in the media and on the left screaming about these two, so that when they do finally announce their pick, that person will seem much less inflammatory and will get far less "bad press" so to speak. "


Perfect Logic there . Misdirection has Always been in his Bag of Tricks . Mr. Trump Hates to be Predictable . Case in Point , Winning the Election........LOL



posted on Nov, 17 2016 @ 10:55 PM
link   
It is damn scary, they are even considering this guy.

I think I've seen him in a Schwarzenegger movie.



posted on Nov, 17 2016 @ 11:36 PM
link   
Well, well, you guys are putting it together pretty well.
But ya still got a little farther to go.
Keep it up, you'll get there.


Buck



posted on Nov, 18 2016 @ 02:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: Wardaddy454

It's a little inflammatory... and? That translates to WW3? Lol. Did you sleep through the entire Cold War?


And do you know how close it got to going hot? Much closer than the Doomsday Clock lead us to believe.

And it's not a little. Obama, Clinton and the MSM were hell bent on linking Trump, WikiLeaks, and Russia together for the email leaks through propaganda. They were practically beating the war drums over it lol.



posted on Nov, 18 2016 @ 02:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: Annee
It is damn scary, they are even considering this guy.

I think I've seen him in a Schwarzenegger movie.


Well that makes me like him even more.





posted on Nov, 18 2016 @ 02:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: Annee
It is damn scary, they are even considering this guy.

I think I've seen him in a Schwarzenegger movie.


Well that makes me like him even more.




Agreed! Just found this Washington Post "hit piece" against General Michael Flynn..

www.washingtonpost.com... -ad08-11e6-8b45-f8e493f06fcd_story.html

His mindset is almost a mirror image of the man that America just chose as our President and Commander-in-Chief. A great fit. I hope Flynn ACCEPTS the job offer!



posted on Nov, 18 2016 @ 04:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: RickinVa


Smells bad. Looks bad. Maybe there's nothing going on untoward but why chance it at all when there are candidates who are at least as qualified, who will be onboard with Trump, etc? Just seems like a bad move.


Ah, but Clinton smelled rotten and looked rotten, but she was apparently ok for President because a conviction was needed before anything was believed. So, let's use the same standard set by the left shall we? Or would you like to apply a different standard now?

If Flynn is tied to Russia in some way, then there is hope that the US can drag itself up to Russia's standards which, whilst leaving a lot to be desired, are way way above the USA - the most corrupt and dangerous country in the world.
edit on 18/11/2016 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 18 2016 @ 07:32 AM
link   
Yes!

Flynn selected as National Security Advisor

Jeff Sessions as Attorney General

Mike Pompeo (a member of the Tea Party) as CIA Director.


#draintheswamp.

First order of business should be the investigation of Loretta Lynch.
edit on 18/11/2016 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join