Did t read the thread like I said, but Greenwaldis saying take anonymous CIA claims of Russian hacking with a grain of salt.
it's not like this is a single source... every intelligence agency in the US has said that they believe Russia was behind the hacks into the DNC and John Podesta.Did t read the thread like I said, but Greenwaldis saying take anonymous CIA claims of Russian hacking with a grain of salt.
He wants to see the evidence, but I very much doubt we would ever see all the evidence publicly. The intelligence agencies wouldn't want to reveal too much about how they know something, lest they give away their capabilities and sources.I haven't read the whole thread but here's a good article from Glenn Greenwald:
https://theintercept.com/2016/12/10...ussia-beliefs-are-no-substitute-for-evidence/
From what I understand, the CIA basically said Iraq most likely doesn't have an active WMD program and it was the political apparatus of the Bush administration that dropped many of qualifiers in the intelligence assessment to make it seem like intelligence backed up the narrative they were selling.The FBI said the RNC wasn't hacked (although how would they know). CIA also said Iraq had wmd's.
An expurgated version of the document was released as the result of a Freedom of Information Act request in 2004. But it wasn't until last year that a transparency activist named John Greenwald was able to obtain the intelligence estimate in its entirety. Greenwald provided the document to Jason Leopold of Vice News, which published it with analysis on March 19th.
The document determines that Saddam Hussein had an active chemical weapons program — although crucially, the CIA couldn't prove that his regime had actually resumed producing chemical and biological agents and cast doubt on the actual extent of Saddam's program.
The intelligence estimate also heavily qualified its evidence of any link between Saddam's regime and al Qaeda, noting that the sources were not entirely reliable.
The full document allows for a comparison of the CIA's actual findings with both the Bush administration's pre-war claims, and later post-war assessments of Saddam's actual WMD capabilities.
In December, the RAND Corporation issued a report that stated the CIA assessment "contained several qualifiers that were dropped ... As the draft NIE went up the intelligence chain of command, the conclusions were treated increasingly definitively."
Nah, just watching you blow a fuse daily for the next few years.
How about them appointments Trump has been selecting?
I haven't read the whole thread but here's a good article from Glenn Greenwald:
https://theintercept.com/2016/12/10...ussia-beliefs-are-no-substitute-for-evidence/
The FBI said the RNC wasn't hacked (although how would they know). CIA also said Iraq had wmd's.
Depending on what evidence they show it might tell the hackers what mistakes they made that led to being caught. Most of the time the hackers do not want the person to know they were hacked so they try to remove any trace of the hack. They might have a mole within the organization that did the hacking and they don't want them to be found out. If it is a foreign government it might lead to torture or death.CIA director said it was a slam dunk. I agree we arent likely to see what the evidence is though.
CIA director said it was a slam dunk. I agree we arent likely to see what the evidence is though.
Tenet said his comment did not refer to whether Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, but related to what information could be used to make a public case for the war
I'm interested to hear what you want to force these private organizations to do. It's also interesting that you appear to think that the party that got the most votes is the one that didn't listen to the citizens.
I really wonder about the rationality in openly criticizing an agency that is known to have participated in the assassination of one president already. Trump loves conspiracy theories too, so we can only assume he believes in the theory that the CIA assisted in the execution.
The CIA are not to be trifled with, they are dangerous. I wonder what they have in store for this orange man.
Kennedy was as scum as anyone else, fear-mongering his way into the White House and failing in his attempts at confronting communism internationally. Maybe the CIA did America a solid.
Kennedy was as scum as anyone else, fear-mongering his way into the White House and failing in his attempts at confronting communism internationally. Maybe the CIA did America a solid.
Putin's puppet is going to be running the US, elected by many of the same people who elected Reagan. Isn't it ironic, don't you think?
He wasnt really all that bad, and in fact it probably would have been better for America had he never been assassinated.
Died too early to say. Vietnam likely would have still happened, at least.
He wants to see the evidence, but I very much doubt we would ever see all the evidence publicly. The intelligence agencies wouldn't want to reveal too much about how they know something, lest they give away their capabilities and sources.
From what I understand, the CIA basically said Iraq most likely doesn't have an active WMD program and it was the political apparatus of the Bush administration that dropped many of qualifiers in the intelligence assessment to make it seem like intelligence backed up the narrative they were selling.
http://www.businessinsider.com/here...intelligence-assessment-on-wmd-in-iraq-2015-3
The FBI said the RNC wasn't hacked (although how would they know). CIA also said Iraq had wmd's.
Well, GOP are the party of treason, at least in the 20th century. In the 19th century, it was the Democrats.People in this thread are borderline accusing the Republican party of treason without a single damn bit of proof. Its ridiculous.
CIA director said it was a slam dunk. I agree we arent likely to see what the evidence is though.