I didn't say the speculation by the CIA was right. I noted there was a difference within the intelligence services on the point and that the Bush administration was selective in what it chose to advance. You should look at the Senate Intelligence report from 2008 on the points.
The CIA report was wrong, and that's the point. The CIA can get it wrong, and based on the latest research, it appears that perhaps their position on Russia hacking the DNC computers is likewise wrong.
He was a good soldier. Read the full report from the Senate. It'll do you good.
Right, he's a good soldier. He's admitting the intellgence on Iraq's WMDs was wrong.
No, he's doing what good leaders do. He's taking responsibility. It's not surprising.
Perhaps he's telling the truth? He actually agrees with what he's saying.
He isn't running an Anti American/West enterprise out of Canada.
No, he's just saying the opposite of what you're asserting. Your shifting of all of the blame on the Bush administration, and pretending the CIA report was inconclusive on the issue of Saddam having WMDs. The CIA made its position quite clear, that it believed Saddam had WMDs, and posed a serious threat to our national security. They were wrong.
Like I noted prior, your ease with disinformation makes you a good spokesman for Putin, but you're on the wrong side of facts.
You haven't demonstrated that yet, keep trying.
It was all through the post. Most of the quotes weren't closed and it was a mess.
Right, because I copy and paste the code on my word processor. I didn't notice the missing bracket. Big deal.
The suggestion was meant to help you and those who read you and it hadn't been addressed by the time I wrote that. Also, if you're using closed quotes you don't really have to write "Response:" because it's more than implied by the fact that you're, you know, responding.
In the last few posts, I didn't add "response" to my answers.
You cited them. I haven't seen any of your other source material by link.
I cited several other sources, if you care to notice. The last source, was an American Liberal news source, that discusses the same exact research I'm citing.
And there are a lot more people on my side of it with as or greater particular skill sets.
None of the references you've presented, has conclusive evidence the DNC computers were hacked , much less by the Russian government. The latest research is pointing towards a leak, not a hack. Our audience can compare our sources, and come to their own conclusions.
I'm not sure what a list of names is meant to accomplish short of something more. . . the appearance of authority?
Exactly. Just like you cite your "authorities", I cite mine. You are wrong, about my opinion, only resting on a Canadian website article.
You know, big tobacco had a longer list of people willing to tell you their product had no connection to cancer.
You're the one explicitely appealing to the masses/ad populum, not me. I was just responding to your false assumption, that my position rests on a website in Canada, run by a Canadian with a Russian daddy. That's simply not true.
You know who does? The fellow running an anti-American and pro Russian grist mill out of Canada. But you're right. It's probably just a remarkable coincidence.
You're obsessed with this guy.
I've advanced a broader argument, noted the intelligence community and Congressional oversight have had to say about Russian interference and attempts aimed at our election and the response that followed. I'm not making an ad hom attack in any of that. And you can't throw that stone in any event without being as hypocritical as you are selective in your focus.
We'll let others decide, who's presented a better argument.
