| >Hypothetically, there could have been no lying anywhere in the chain Very hypothetically though. I don't know of many countries where they'd believe "not lying involved" to be the case (or even the higher echelons not knowing it, much less someone like DWB). This appears to be a naivety unique to the US and a very few other places - perhaps because most people never had much issue to distrust the system in their personal lives, they get screwed over only in aggregate or abstract political ways. Any country that has had a more direct experience of history unfolding (wars, dictatorships, meddling, etc) knows this isn't the case. I guess blacks in the US did have such an experience (e.g. Jim Crow and other actions against them, open and convert - e.g. MLK/FBI). >For example, claims of election interference and espionage by the Russian government can be and frequently are easily dismissed by citing the WMD incident. As they should, unless evidence is given (and real evidence, not the kind usually given "we found some russian IP involved" etc, as this is fool proof, not to mention we have to trust them on having found it). Historically intelligence agencies have lied again and again (judging from when they are sometimes cought or stuff gets unclassified over time), and on purpose, and it's not some bad apple/incompetence involved, it's matter of policy (basically their role is not to "find the truth" but to "serve the given objectives/create a narrative"). |