I'll take a look at the Gellman piece which I haven't read yet, but like I said, I'm reserving judgement
OK. But two of us who know details in granular detail have raised NOT nitpicking issues but factual issues.
-
-
So before you start defending HPSCI, maybe do that kind of granular work. Fleitz has not done it.
-
I am no HPSCI apologist as you know from my writings and testimony. I won't offer a granular assessment on incomplete info.
-
Sure. But if they made claims that are misleading or wrong in 3 page report, they are propagandists, not overseers.
-
Again, I think there's a respectable anti-Snowden case. HPSCI chose not to make it, but instead to propagandize. That's problem
-
it's a damage assessment. The point it is trying to make is what happened to US security. The Snowden comments are dicta.
-
Again, HPSCI chose to release a bunch of claims, a number of which are either misleading or clearly false. Why?
-
so the "misleading or false" is a layer of this debate that a) I won't take your word on b) won't defend for them.
-
Don't take my word on it. Or Bart's. Look up Snowden's GED #. But you ALREADY defended them. Thereby taking their word.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
i am happy to read what you and Barton have written but not tonight.
-
Fine. Then please don't claim those attacking HPSCI report are making "nit-picking" complaints. You have no place to claim yet
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.