3 ms·
First, I haven't seen anyone, CIA or not, provide any evidence to link russia with the DNC hacks (assuming that's what we mean by "russia hacked the election" t
by 464192002d7fe1c 10y ago
First, I haven't seen anyone, CIA or not, provide any evidence to link russia with the DNC hacks (assuming that's what we mean by "russia hacked the election" this week)
Second, "its complicated" is a terrible excuse. Lots of things are complicated, this election was really complicated to some people too.
Third, yes, the leadership changes as the CIA director (and lots of the people who work for him) are political appointees. More evidence that they are politically motivated if they ever make any public claims w/r/t the election (which, btw, they haven't actually).
Fourth, I did not suggest that, you read into my statement. My point is purely that we should not accept the word of the CIA (if they ever actually speak about this, and its not just "anonymous sources") at face value and should question and that their historical accuracy should be a factor in that deliberation.
- tptacek 10y agoSee https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13208076 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13208076 regarding availability of evidence (and reply there, if you feel the need, just to keep the thread coherent). Second, my argument isn't "it's complicated". My argument is that the CIA of 2002 wasn't unanimously in support of the claim that Hussein had weapons programs. The DoD and VP's office, on the other hand, clearly were. Your third point concedes my argument without rebutting it. Your fourth point knocks down a straw man.
- 464192002d7fe1c 10y agoAgain more "lalalala i can't hear you" arguments go discuss this somewhere else and "you didn't do the research" arguments. Completely incoherent ramblings. At some point, you're going to need to face the fact that this is just your opinion and that the facts don't line up. Today? I guess not. Eventually you'll need to face reality.