This is a fair point. I agree. But if the Trump administration is going to go around making inflammatory allegations without proof or verification, then I don't feel very guilty about citing unnamed sources to contradict their narrative.
If the Trump administration won't prove or verify their claims about Iran, then there is nothing wrong with using unproven or unverified sources as a counter. Fair is fair.
Yup. It's so unbelievably obvious. For Chrissakes, John Bolton is behind this. Of course it's all lies. Nothing Bolton says should be believed without ironclad proof to back it up. In fact, if you assume Bolton is lying anytime he speaks, you'll be right 99% of the time.
Netanyahu may be popular in Israel, but he is imperiling Israel's strategic position with his arrogance and his unilateralism. Nobody has done more harm to Israeli interests than Netanyahu himself.
We'll name names just as soon as the Trump administration proves or at least verifies its allegations about Iran. Fair deal?
Then so are the Trump administration's allegations about Iran, which have yet to be proven or verified in any way.
You mean you don't get the daily intelligence briefs? Sorry. I will speak with Donald about that oversight.
You expect people to believe something that hasn't been proven or verified in any way, yet you object to the use of unnamed sources. Do you not see the contradiction there?
It's so absurd. Iran is well aware that they have no chance of winning a war with the US, so why would they even contemplate starting one? Iran's haters will tell us it's because the Iranian Mullahs are suicidal or something, yet there isn't any evidence to support that theory. It's just something they assert over and over again until it takes on the appearance of truth.
Criticizing use of unnamed sources is not supporting Trump or war with Iran. It is a simple stand alone observation.
That’s the problem with politics today. It’s all “fair for the goose fair for the gander”, whataboutism, and the inability to criticize bad behavior on it’s merits not the criticizer’s opinion of the actor. We can be critical of both the administration and the media and their unnamed sources. Or one or the other. They are independent actions and should be viewed and evaluated as such. Not as excuses or justification for other bad behavior.
Using unnamed sources is actually a legitimate journalistic practice. It's on the reader to decide if it's credible or not. Personally, I find this credible for a number of reasons, not least of which is Bolton's part in all of this. The man is a known liar and degenerate who's been salivating at the chance to attack Iran for years. Of course he is exaggerating. Of course he is trying to deceive us. It's what he does. It's who he is. As far as I'm concerned, these unnamed sources might as well have said "two plus two equals four".
Well, you keep an eye on that for the world. If you're an Iranian, have you heard of "duck and cover"?
The US government is very skilled in the art of deception, over many long decades. Manufacturing fake evidence is its modus operandi.