Saudi Arabia and Qatar Supporting ISIS...

[donquixote99]

Originally Posted by whell

Sorry, but you're twisting the facts here. That statement followed MONTHS of investigations into the source of the DNC hack. It was released on 10/7. The latest release on Wikileaks of the Blumenthal emails that the OP in this thread refers to came after.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/1...hacking-229296

The public finger pointing also bows to weeks of pressure from Capitol Hill and national security experts, who have lambasted the White House for staying silent about the series of hacks that have roiled the Democratic party, exposed the inner machinations of political organizations, revealed the private exchanges of high-ranking officials and fueled doubts about the electoral system's integrity.

On Friday, the administration broke that silence.

It was White House spokesman Josh Earnst who over this past weekend suggested that the latest dump on Wikileaks was "consistent with Russian - directed efforts". That statement, from Obama's political flunkie and absent any investigation by forensic cyber-security folks, has zero credibility.

Also, there have been no denials from Blumenthal, Clinton or others about much of what's in the latest release of Bluemnthal's emails. That's pretty damn telling as well.

So, sorry, you'll need to stop patting yourselves on the back and "bamboozling" yourselves before you pull a muscle.

1. So you're saying even if that batch of DNC emails stolen by hackers and released by Wikileaks comes from Russians, when another batch of DNC emails stolen by hackers and released by Wikileaks comes out, the source must be regarded as a total mystery?

2. And you're saying 'no government agency has tied the hacking to the Russians, and when they do, I won't believe it.'

[whell]

Originally Posted by donquixote99

1. So you're saying even if that batch of DNC emails stolen by hackers and released by Wikileaks comes from Russians, when another batch of DNC emails stolen by hackers and released by Wikileaks comes out, the source must be regarded as a total mystery?

2. And you're saying 'no government agency has tied the hacking to the Russians, and when they do, I won't believe it.'

1. No, you're saying that.

2. No, you're saying that.

My points on this are pretty simple, but I'll try to simplify it some more just for you.

- The Podesta emails currently being dumped on Wikilieaks - source of emails and hacker is not currently known. The Clinton campaign and their surrogates are attempting to suggest that its the Russians. Fine, they can suggest all they want, but at this time the source is not known. The FBI is currently probing the hack, but your assertion that the Russians did it in post #2 and #17 in this thread is not accurate. It may prove to be accurate, and it may not, but we certainly won't know before the FBI completes its investigation.

- The source the the email hacks may only be relevant for prosecuting a case against the hacker. Your post #2 in this thread asserted "You can't trust any of it." Yet, Podesta has yet to deny that any specific content of those emails has been falsified or tampered with. As far as I know, Podesta has, to date, suggested that such tampering is a possibility. Beyond that, as the NPR story suggests - and there are many more like it - the news media is running those emails as if they are "the real deal". Also, the best Podesta can do is suggest that Trump is involved with the leaks due to his "deep engagement and ties with Russian interests in his business affairs." That's pretty far from saying the content of the emails is not accurate. Its also a bullshit smokescreen.

There. Do you get it now?

[donquixote99]

Originally Posted by whell

Yet, Podesta has yet to deny that any specific content of those emails has been falsified or tampered with.

Well, there has been blatant misrepresentation of their content. See Trump at the clip at the beginning of this MSNBC piece, reciting what he says were the words of Sidney Blumenthal.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=74ziTslRKJM

Unfortunately, they weren't the words of Blumenthal, they were the words of Kurt Eichenwald, as he explains in the balance of the MSNBC piece above.

What happened is the email stuff includes the text of this 10,000-word Eichenwald piece because Blumenthal forwarded it it Podesta. So a Russian propaganda site posts that quote, and says it's Blumenthal's words! Either a mistake or deliberate misinformation.

Here's the really funny thing. Trump does the same thing! He reads Eichenwalds words, and says they are Blumenthal's! So did the Trump people independently dive into the email, find the same two sentences, and make the same 'mistake' as the Russians? Seems very very unlikely.

So how does one explain Trump reciting Russian disinformation/propaganda?

[nailer]

The Donald is seeking political advantage wherever it can be found.

[donquixote99]

The questions also is "What are the Russian's doing?"

[nailer]

Same thing - seeking advantage.

[donquixote99]

A rather bland description of interfering in the American election, I'd say.....

[whell]

Originally Posted by donquixote99

Well, there has been blatant misrepresentation of their content. See Trump at the clip at the beginning of this MSNBC piece, reciting what he says were the words of Sidney Blumenthal.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=74ziTslRKJM

Unfortunately, they weren't the words of Blumenthal, they were the words of Kurt Eichenwald, as he explains in the balance of the MSNBC piece above.

What happened is the email stuff includes the text of this 10,000-word Eichenwald piece because Blumenthal forwarded it it Podesta. So a Russian propaganda site posts that quote, and says it's Blumenthal's words! Either a mistake or deliberate misinformation.

Here's the really funny thing. Trump does the same thing! He reads Eichenwalds words, and says they are Blumenthal's! So did the Trump people independently dive into the email, find the same two sentences, and make the same 'mistake' as the Russians? Seems very very unlikely.

So how does one explain Trump reciting Russian disinformation/propaganda?

You can explore all that in another thread if you wish. You want to make this about Trump to deflect from the idiocy that is the Clinton campaign. Fine. But again, no one is denying that - back to the original post - Clinton knew the the Saudi's and Qatar's actions have been placing our troops in Syria in danger. No one seems too interested in dealing with that, however.

Its also pretty damn odd that Clinton's statements on Syrian strategy specifically call for no boots on the ground. So, if she's elected, she'll have a choice to make if she's going to execute that strategy:

- Retreat from Syria, and since you're so enthralled with Putin and company, such retreat will likely result in further Russian adventurism in Syria and elsewhere in the region. Or;

- Retreat from her stated strategy and leave or increase the boots on the ground there.

One other thing: look at you and all the Dems freaking out about Russia's aggression / interference. Wasn't it just 4 years ago that Romney got blasted by the left for suggesting that Russia was a significant threat?

[donquixote99]

Wasn't me blasting Romney on the Russians four years ago. Romney's a fine fellow (in comparison to the current nominee, at least) and quite capable of being right about some things.

And you are ignoring that Hillary's 'no boots on the ground' specifically excludes small-scale special forces deployment as at present. No retreat necessary.

Any increase in Russian adventurism vs Hillary would certainly be DWARFED by what they'll be up to if they get their best-friend candidate elected....

[whell]

Originally Posted by donquixote99

And you are ignoring that Hillary's 'no boots on the ground' specifically excludes small-scale special forces deployment as at present. No retreat necessary.

Well, you're right about one thing anyway: when it comes to the Clintons, you better make sure that you understand their use of the language. Just like we needed Bill to tell us what was meant by the word "is", I guess we need to understand what Hillary means, or doesn't mean, by "No boots on the ground."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...raq-and-syria/

Clinton's promise appeared to make even a top military adviser of hers, retired U.S. Air Force Brig. Gen. John Douglass, squirm Thursday morning. Pressed on her pledge on NBC's "Today," Douglass tried to make the case that she hadn't actually "meant" to take any options off the table.

"You can look at that one way or another, and I don't think she meant to take an option off the table," he said. "I think she meant to say that her policy is that she is not going to go in at the scale that [George W.] Bush and others have done there in Iraq."

But that's not what Clinton said. Her language clearly took the option of ground troops — however you define that — off the table in both Iraq and Syria.

So, you can have this one, Don, 'cuz no one is ever sure what Hillary means or whether she's telling the truth anyway.