3 ms·
>according to three former senior U.S. officials with knowledge of the matter. It would matter if there were any substance to the claims, it might make sense.
by creaghpatr 7y ago
>according to three former senior U.S. officials with knowledge of the matter.
It would matter if there were any substance to the claims, it might make sense. But instead, the article goes a step further as you quote here:
>> The former senior intelligence official criticized how the administration handled the matter, remarking on the striking difference from past administrations, which likely would have at a very minimum issued a démarche, or formal diplomatic reprimand, to the foreign government condemning its actions.
This take, of course, hinges on the premise being correct, which there is no substance to prove it is. This is classic oppo laundering.
- dullgiulio 7y agoIt is not so hard to imagine why the source would like to remain anonymous.
- pessimizer 7y agoIt's also extremely common to float false information through "anonymous government officials."
- creaghpatr 7y agoCorrect, which is why it is oppo laundering, as opposed to just a hit piece.
- jakelazaroff 7y agoYou're moving the goalposts. Regardless of the intent of the piece, it clearly cites its sources.
- creaghpatr 7y agoIt cites 3 former senior administration officials, which narrows it down to thousands of people who may or may not be privy to such info. It’s the same as saying, “according to 3 human beings...” . The sources won’t be burned so we’ll never know- it’s the same as making it up.