Of course! After the multi-Trillion dollar fiasco in Iraq I absolutely think that the raw evidence for grandiose claims about foreign threats must be disclosed without artifice to the people.
We learned from the Iraq and Afghanistan war logs that our leaders classified information not to protect people or methods but to hide aspects of the war effort from the American people. This is a high and vicious crime, and nobody was held accountable for it.
You are advocating placing blind trust in people who have not only been wrong, but have been intentionally wrong in an attempt to mislead and misdirect us.
> Via raw common sense alone,
The mistake you make here is to assume that we can apply comnon sense when the landscape of "facts" we are considering has been contrived and heavily influenced by people who want a specific outcome.
I'm not arguing that Russia did not meddle in the election or any making any specific claim about Russia, just making the point that common sense is not something we can rely on, and so our default judgement should be to de-escalate rather than escalate tensions with a nuclear power.
Nope. I stated the opposite: that all of the evidence already pointed us in this direction. No blind trust required.
>The mistake you make here is to assume that we can apply common sense
Ah, yes, the ol' "who ya' gonna trust, me or your lyin' eyes?" defense. Sorry, I prefer that my fellow Americans leave our eyes and brains switched on. We really need them these days, what with the shills and propagandists running rampant.
>the landscape of "facts" we are considering has been contrived and heavily influenced
The landscape of facts to which many of us are referring don't require quotes and include the otherwise inexplicable words out of Trump's mouth, coupled with his actions, removal of key parts of the RNC platform in Russia's favor, secret connections with his aides and the subsequent lying and admissions, etc. We know enough as irrefutable fact without relying on our intelligence agencies. Odd that you suggest we ignore it all.
>I'm not arguing that Russia did not meddle...our default judgement should be to de-escalate rather than escalate tensions
This argument comes straight out of Trump's mouth and makes no sense. It's essentially an argument for encouraging any adversary who wishes to extract concessions from us to simply attack us.
And, where else do we advocate responding to direct attacks with kindness? Where else do we advocate not holding aggressors responsible and instead to appease or "de-escalate", as you put it? Indeed the normally bellicose Trump himself has inexplicably treated our allies far less favorably than a foreign aggressor. Now, why is that?
> And, where else do we advocate responding to direct attacks with kindness? Where else do we advocate not holding aggressors responsible and instead to appease or "de-escalate", as you put it? Indeed the normally bellicose Trump himself has inexplicably treated our allies far less favorably than a foreign aggressor. Now, why is that?
This is the argument George W. Bush made about Iraq and why it was necessary to overthrow Saddam.
> Odd that you suggest we ignore it all. > Ah, yes, the ol' "who ya' gonna trust, me or your lyin' eyes?" defense
I think it depends on what you consider evidence. If you can't imagine renting a VPS in Ukraine and running some scripts on it, I suppose the evidence is convincing.
Nope. Just the facts.
>This is the argument George W. Bush made about Iraq
"Because, Iraq" is not a magical dismissal for everything the U.S. does forevermore. It's possible (and sensible) to disagree with the Iraq War and Russian attacks on our democracy. In fact, that's where most Americans stand.
>If you can't imagine renting a VPS in Ukraine and running some scripts
Yeah, that or the 400lb guy in his basement makes more sense than what the U.S. intelligence agencies concluded.
But, AGAIN, ignore the agencies and just look at Trump's counterintuitive, but consistent behavior.
What behavior? I read a few more articles on this and unless Trump is very stupid this is NOT the way he'd strengthen Russia at the expense of the US.
If he wanted to do that he'd likely just do it behind the scenes, not appoint a cabinet full of people on the payroll of Russia :)
I am not referring specifically to that document, but to the repeated public assertion that the intelligence agencies had reached a consensus, combined with the reality that the assertion itself went unchallenged by those agencies. They could have easily denied those claims. Yes, I am aware that this area was not the specific purview of all agencies, however, the united front represented the intelligence community coalescing around this finding.
And, you assail the document, but do you expect them to divulge sources and methods?
>But it all rests on trusting the agencies
No. It actually doesn't. You look at all of the other evidence and ask whether the agencies' explanation is plausible in that context. The strange affinty that Trump has for Putin, the inexplicable modification of key RNC platform elements in favor of Putin, the telegraphing of lifting sanctions, the connections and contacts between Trump associates and Russia, the lying about said contacts, the entire Wikileaks operation, and on and on.
Via raw common sense alone, it is actually difficult to believe any other conclusion except that found by our intelligence agencies. What are you suggesting, that we instead believe Russian denials? Or that we believe some conspiracy theory that HRC was directing the intelligence agencies or they otherwise went rogue to elect her by making up a conclusion that happened to make perfect sense, and which many observers had already reached?