4 ms·
> “If you ever get asked the question, ‘Did you pass a target to the Ukrainians?’ you can legitimately not be lying when you say, ‘No, I did not,’” one U.S. off
by rdtsc 2y ago
> “If you ever get asked the question, ‘Did you pass a target to the Ukrainians?’ you can legitimately not be lying when you say, ‘No, I did not,’” one U.S. official explained.
That's some shady word mincing. Who are they afraid of, US Congress? journalists? Who would be asking these questions.
This is in the same vein as "we never engaged in water torture!". But did you use "enhanced interrogation techniques using water?". You can still answer "No", if you use diesel fuel instead, you see.
- pseudalopex 2y agoThe context was stated in the 2 paragraphs before. Some people avoided calling locations targets because the information needed verification. A target is a place to attack. A point of interest is a place to look.
- rdtsc 2y agoAbove they are still called targets though. > Every morning, officers recalled, the Ukrainians and Americans gathered to survey Russian weapons systems and ground forces and determine the ripest, highest-value targets > Given the delicacy of the mission, was it unduly provocative to call targets “targets”? It's about "the delicacy" of the mission not them moving or not moving. It could have been "potential targets" or "moving targets" instance otherwise. > “If you ever get asked the question, ‘Did you pass a target to the Ukrainians?’ you can legitimately not be lying when you say, ‘No, I did not,’” one U.S. official explained. The un-named "US official" spelled it out for us eventually so we don't have to guess and read between the lines.