Read the story. He inducted 13 supposed members of a private company, none of whom are even in the US. It’s a political indictment. Posturing. And even if it’s *all* true, they didn’t move any numbers. Hillary spent over a billion dollars - 3x as much as Trump - and lost.
-
-
Right. "None of the indictments so far have involved Russian election interference." "Oh, they have? Well, those indictments were just POLITICAL indictments". WTF does that even mean? You are dismissing every fact that doesn't align with your preferred narrative.
1 odpowiedź 0 podanych dalej 1 polubiony -
I was talking about the people close to Trump like Manafort. They can indict unknown people in a foreign land all day long. It’s meaningless. Do you believe “WMDs in Iraq” was a mistake? Or a lie?
2 odpowiedzi 0 podanych dalej 0 polubionych -
WMDs in Iraq was a mix of bad intelligence misused by the Bushies and twisted by them into outright lies. Also wasn't a consensus IC opinion, fwiw.
1 odpowiedź 0 podanych dalej 1 polubiony -
Neither is “Trump/Russia”. The “17 agencies” thing was *also* a lie. And no, it wasn’t bad intel. It was deliberate dishonesty.https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2008/02/un-deception-what-exactly-colin-powell-knew-five-years-ago-and-what-he-told-world/ …
1 odpowiedź 0 podanych dalej 0 polubionych -
I already agreed with you that it was deliberate dishonesty from the Bush administration. The article you cite focuses on Powell's lies, and repeatedly shows the intelligence staff calling his claims "weak, not credible, or highly questionable". Did you actually read this?
1 odpowiedź 0 podanych dalej 1 polubiony -
Did you actually read this? http://www.businessinsider.com/heres-the-full-version-of-the-cias-2002-intelligence-assessment-on-wmd-in-iraq-2015-3 …pic.twitter.com/YkESIZDnbr
1 odpowiedź 0 podanych dalej 0 polubionych -
Like I already wrote, this was not a consensus IC opinion, as evidence by the Powell article you posted.
1 odpowiedź 0 podanych dalej 1 polubiony -
Neither is “Trump/Russia.” But among the FBI, CIA and NSA, in both cases, it *was* consensus opinion. So, what’s your point?
1 odpowiedź 0 podanych dalej 0 polubionych -
You're the one who posted the article as if it was indictment of the IC, when in fact it was an indictment of Powell's lies and highlighted elements of IC contradicting Powell's lies. That was my point.
1 odpowiedź 0 podanych dalej 1 polubiony
Yet you ignore the CIA, NSA and FBI all backing the “WMD” narrative, knowing Powell was lying. Why?
Wydaje się, że ładowanie zajmuje dużo czasu.
Twitter jest przeciążony lub wystąpił chwilowy problem. Spróbuj ponownie lub sprawdź status Twittera, aby uzyskać więcej informacji.