Intelligence rarely meets the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard required to convict in a U.S. court, said Michael Hayden, a former director of the CIA and the National Security Agency.
Do you see what's wrong with Michael Hayden's statement there? Well, if not, it might not be that you too are stupid. It might simply be that you lack education in the particular field. Hayden has no such excuse. Once I point it out, you may consider it clever on Hayden's part. It's not. It's blatantly wrong at his level and therefore stupid.
You've heard the old saying that honesty is the best policy. Well, it the smart policy. That's what "best" there means. It doesn't mean that you have to divulge everything you know.
Under certain circumstances, you may admit that you refuse to answer even though you know the answer or you may simply clam up right from the start, not answer and not admit that you know or don't know. What you shouldn't do under any circumstances is knowingly undermine righteousness or rationalize as to what constitutes righteousness.
Michael Hayden and the US government at the so-called top blatantly lie rather frequently; but even more often, they deliberately work to undermine righteousness. They tell plenty of half-truths to deceive.
So, on to the huge stupidity of Michael Hayden's statement above.
It's all wrapped up in "beyond a reasonable doubt" and the circumstances. When we try a person for stealing a loaf of bread, even if he was hungry and broke and was refused help at every turn, we (the state in this case; not I) apply the "beyond a shadow of a doubt" standard. Even the slightest doubt that he is guilty should see him set free. One's doubt that casts a shadow may seem an unreasonably high standard under other circumstances where the person's guilt or innocence won't see him punished by the state either way. We rise to the higher standard because getting it wrong and punishing an innocent person is vastly worse than letting a guilty one go free.
That's only partly why Hayden is obviously stupid (being stupid on purpose; for evil reasons). The worse aspect is that he's being stupid about it where we aren't talking about one man going to jail for a bit or just being put on probation for stealing (where the standard is so high). We're talking about a situation where many hundreds have already lost their lives and where WWIII could be triggered if recklessness is given its head.
NATO and Russia are nuclear-weapons superpowers. Russia has exceptionally sophisticated missile and other technologies, some of which no doubt is secret and not known by the US/NATO. Therefore, this situation not only calls for a standard much higher than beyond a reasonable doubt but higher than what would be applied in putting a bread thief in jail, not that any injustice toward the innocent is ever acceptable.
Naturally, the US government, the Obama administration, and the rest who hold with Hayden (finding it acceptable to declare Russia and Putin guilty on such a matter where so much hangs in the balance) are equally as stupid if not more so.
Let's continue with the article.
It mentions the audio. What it doesn't tell you is that Russian experts have said the audio is spliced together and that it is from an event that happened before the downing of the airliner. As I wrote elsewhere, it would be an easy matter for truly independent (non-US intelligence experts; non-Zionists) in the US to corroborate or refute or at least cast doubt upon the Russians' expert opinions on the audio.
The article also cited anonymous sources. Well, given the gravity of the situation, that's not good enough. There's nothing in the article that the US government doesn't want out there. Therefore, show us your evidence beyond wild speculation and conjecture or, frankly, shut up, liars.
Don't forget James Clapper's whopping lie to the US Congress and American people. Also don't forget that Barack Obama didn't fire the liar.
They lie on purpose. It's a proven fact.
The US government claims it didn't know the pro-Russia, Ukrainian federalists had such missiles. Well, they still don't know it. They have simply attempted and failed miserably to paint a circumstantial picture that we are supposed to be dumb enough to just accept (because we trust the proven liars). Honestly, are we such the weak-minded American public?
Do we go to war with Russia or make financial and economic war on the Russians based upon so-called evidence that wouldn't even legitimately land a bread thief over night in the local police-station holding tank?