is maddow out duping people again?

https://forums.d2jsp.org/topic.php?t=83509575&f=119&o=60

Here OP uncritically accepts press releases from an unnamed source, with no evidence, and quickly jumps to conclusions. Some guy who goes by the name "Goom" points out his mistake, and at length exposes OP's naiveté; OP is unfortunately unwilling to listen. I would hope, and have to believe, that OP wouldn't make the same mistake twice.

Greenwald is drawing the same ridiculous conclusions here... he says the Russian bounties claim is meritless, but that's not what medium confidence means. He's just repeating the claim from the Daily Beast uncritically... kind of ironic considering the themes of his article. And he doesn't even deal with the differing accounts of what the intelligence services did collect, which led them to their conclusion. You also have to appreciate Glenn letting Trump off the hook for not leaving Afghanistan... it's not the orange man's fault, it's the deep state and media! Lol. I guess this sort of nonsense keeps the Substack subscriptions flowing though.

Also nice touch when he says "hey, if Trump's campaign chairman gave internal campaign information to a Russian intelligence officer, and that guy gave it to the Russian intel services, it's no big deal!". That just shows you how this guy's brain has completely rotted out the last 5 years. His hatred for Democrats and the US government has turned him into a laughingstock. Greenwald took like 3 years to even acknowledge that Russia probably did hack the DNC. Skepticism has it's place, but there's a point where it becomes unreasonable. That's the space Glenn has lived for years.

As far as his broader point, journalists repeat the claims of the US government all the time. It's not controversial to do so. The US Treasury has credibility, and with government secrets, there's no reasonable expectation that Uncle Sam is going to burn their sources and methods just to appease the insane skeptics.

This is consistent with what Glenn does though:

https://twitter.com/Wilson__Valdez/status/1381298720873066505

He's skeptical to the point of being ridiculous, even when there's circumstantial evidence pointing to how the claim is eminently reasonable, but not so much when he goes on the attack. Let's take Kilimnik. He worked with Manafort for the Russia-aligned Ukrainian leader. He had contact with Manafort during the campaign, which included discussing a Russian-friendly plan for eastern Ukraine. He apparently was in the Soviet Army and worked with the GRU as a translator. He was associated with Oleg Deripaska, a Russian oligarch close to Putin. So, how ridiculous is the claim that he had connections to Russian intelligence, or even that he was an officer? Is the CIA making up that claim as well? Are those facts not consistent with a Russian intelligence officer? And if he was a Russian intelligence officer, wouldn't it make perfect sense that he would take advantage of his relationship with Manafort? Both to get internal campaign information, float the Russian-friendly Ukraine deal, and perhaps hold leverage over him for the future. This isn't exactly 4d chess.

Lastly, is calling a new story a fraud in the headline, simply because it came from US intelligence and offends your sensibilities, supposed to be objective journalism? Yet another example of his hypocrisy.

This post was edited by IceMage on Apr 17 2021 12:33am

So either you guys didn't read my post in response to Santara, or you're not able to understand what it says.

Nothing quoted in the opening of that thread has been refuted, as far as I know. Goom calling it "unconfirmed wild rumors" is not accurate. That's not a fair way to describe a medium confidence intelligence assessment.

On collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign, and the Russian bounties story, I turned out to be right. Collusion has been confirmed. The Russian bounties story was credible. And those disputing the former are stuck with the "deep state made it up" argument, which is entirely predictable.

This post was edited by IceMage on Apr 17 2021 12:19am

I can lead a castrated neocon to water, but I can't make him think.

This limp-wristed posturing and weak attempt at character assassination of the journalist that regularly debunks your parroted worldview just doesn't cut it.

Faking quotes, making asinine digs about Greenwald and mispresenting the tarnished bounty story as 'medium confidence' when they said 'low to moderate' does not serve as an adequate rebuttal.

Neither does painting anyone "insane" for reasonably doubting the evidence-free assertions of disreputable and untrustworthy government agencies.

There is a difference between reporting on statements coming from the government vs a state media eagerly pushing their narrative as fact without skepticism or actual journalism.

Glenn Greenwald continues to be one of the best journalists in the world.
Many democrats have massively shifted through this massive propaganda campaign and neocon infiltration of the party. Greenwald has remained consistent. A critic of the warfare state and intelligent skeptic of state propaganda.

Pretending his brain has rotted won't fly here. I'm not some vapid gender studies college student that doesn't know any better. Nor am I a disgraced neocon looking to grasp at anything I can to continue holding abhorrent views.
Calling him names and misrepresenting his work just reflects poorly on yourself.

This post was edited by cambovenzi on Apr 17 2021 12:51am

I like how you chose to focus exclusively on IceMage's characterization of Greenwald and totally ignored his criticisms of Greenwald that caused him to come to that conclusion.

Here is the actual verbiage from the NYT article.



And the headline of the article.



The source's claim is clear and unambiguous. US intelligence has concluded that Russia secretly offered bounties to kill U.S. troops. Now we learn that US intelligence hasn't concluded that. Instead, we learn that at the very best the information is "plausible and credibly sourced... but uncorroborated" and at worst "questionable or implausible... [and too] poorly corroborated to make solid inferences".

Does that sound like "American intelligence officials have concluded"? Of course not. The article is false. The independent corroboration, presumably from that same unnamed source, was as fraudulent as Glenn Greenwald and Goom inferred. The NYT and other media outlets regurgitated a single source without ever asking why this extraordinary development hadn't already been released via official communiques.

For some reason you are insistent on accepting the "moderate" and discounting the "questionable, implausible, and poorly corroborated"; you've repeated it multiple times. It contradicts the post you wrote to Santara, so either you don't know what you wrote, or you're busily engaged in the same sort of dishonest framing of which you accused Goom.

The information you are now quoting appears to have been recycled from the 2016 Senate Intel and Mueller reports. We have no new information about Kliminik, nor Manafort, that was not already covered in either court proceedings or those reports. Neither of those reports concludes that the Trump campaign conspired with the Russian government to commit illegal acts. It is incumbent on you to provide that evidence. Instead you've fallen down the same conspiratorial rabbit hole you're accusing others of, and you've made a series of claims in the OP for which you have no more evidence today than you had yesterday, or the week before.

As I said in the post to Santara, and which was reported back in 2020, the CIA had medium confidence in the intelligence. NSA had low confidence. So it's reasonable to conclude the intelligence officials for the story were basing it off the CIA's assessment.

Glenn Greenwald doesn't really do journalism anymore. He's a whiny media critic. Other than that, your reply is just buzzwords and silly personal attacks. You're not really responding to my arguments.

Also, the notion that Democrats used to all hold Greenwald's views on the military, intelligence services, and foreign policy is nonsense. People like him are a minority in the party. Although clearly he's taken advantage of the right-wing's newfound hatred of US intelligence and law enforcement agencies.



I don't know what the norm is for IC professionals and journalists to describe intelligence. If the CIA assesses with medium confidence something happened, is it false to say the CIA concluded something happened? Is high confidence the standard for using the word "concluded" without qualifying the confidence level? I can see your point that the language could be taken as misleading, but again, I'd like to know how NatSec journalists usually handle this. It might be accurate to say that claim is misleading, but to say plainly "the article is false" is just not true. And a medium confidence intelligence assessment is not an "unconfirmed wild rumor".

Like I told Santara, the CIA had a medium confidence level, so it's reasonable to assume the intelligence officials quoted in the story were basing it off of that.

The claim that Kilimnik shared sensitive campaign information with the Russian intelligence services is a new claim. The chairman of the Trump campaign sharing internal campaign information with a Russian intelligence officer, and that officer sharing it with the Russian intelligence services, in the midst of an attack on our election, is collusion. I'm honestly not sure what is hard to understand about this. I mean the idea that I'm in a conspiratorial rabbit hole when the US government has outlined all of these facts is... weird shit man.

This post was edited by IceMage on Apr 17 2021 01:40am

>Greenwald has 'brain rot' and is 'insane' for questioning a deep state narrative
>Biden is totally fine its just a stutter!
-brought to you by the same guy


"..its just a classic way of trying to shut down debate by destroying the reputations of people who try and participate in it and question dogma rather than swallow, accept and recite it" - Glenn Greenwald

"People criticizing me is shutting down debate, and now I'll proceed to call everybody who disagrees with me shills of the CIA and warmongers" - Glenn Greenwald

Glenn can dish it out, but he can't take it.

This post was edited by IceMage on Apr 17 2021 05:46am