3 ms·
Right, so anonymous sources who provided no evidence to the public. It's meaningless.
by Consultant32452 6y ago
Right, so anonymous sources who provided no evidence to the public. It's meaningless.
- bduerst 6y agoThe sources are not anonymous to Reuters and they were authoritative enough in the matter to publish. It is not meaningless.
- Consultant32452 6y agoDo you remember when a named source, Colin Powell, showed some photoshops of "weapons lab trucks" to the UN leading to us going to war in multiple countries resulting in millions of dead people? That was a named person with claimed evidence. This is even less credible than Powell. It's hard to get less credible than unnamed sources with no evidence.