i wonder if the traditional "big wedding" could be made more interesting to men? maybe if it involved a uniformed honor guard with swords followed by a ritualistic rite-of-passage with the groom being tortured by Klingons wielding pain-sticks as he walked over hot burning coals?

flowers and cake and pretty dresses and a corsage?

i imagine the worflow goes something like this: (a) low-level analysts rejecting information that runs contrary to their world-view, (b) a mid-level manager who edits the report so it doesnt conflict substantially with previous reports and make his department look bad, (c) a military general who makes a few revisions so it's clear that financing the next generation submarine-launched ballistic missile is stressed, (d) president has the report (already edited) revised for political purposes (e) congress gets a briefing.

on our end, "the evidence is highly classified" and really amounts to information that is randomly maybe true and randomly not. seems to me the FBI should be investigating cyber-crimes not america's "intelligence community" which too often has served as a political propaganda division.

Which the Left has grasped to try and harm Trump.

You didn't believe them then but you do now.

"You've spent literally years here at this blog apologizing for George W. Bush and saying that there were WMDs found in Iraq.

Nope, my point, made repeatedly, was that Bush acted correctly based on the information he had. That's a fact, not an apology.

 The Left claimed that IA's were wrong. Now the Left claims they are right.

We do know that Iraq's No.2 air force dude said they were sent to Syria at the last moment. We do know that Hans Blix said satellite shots show a lot of truck traffic crossing the boorder at the same time. And we know that old WMD's have been found. At some point they were new. We also know that Iraq tried to purchase uranium from Niger. (They should have waited and Obama would have just given them some.)

I have already stated that Russia probably hacked a private email system and fed the info to WikiLeak who passed it on. Politics and motives aside the information was true and the American voters had every right to know what some high level Democrats thought of each other and minorities.

As Greenwald pointed out, certainly no fan of Trump or a Republican, the IA's provided nothing but thousands of words saying, "Trust us."  They have shown nothing else. But the world has changed. If they have something they should show it. Too much is at stake and we deserve proof and facts. He noted that.

"The same lesson in 2002 when a group of bipartisan senators assured the nation that the intelligence community convinced them that Saddam (Hussein) has weapons of mass destruction ... and the same lesson we learned in 2013, when, just months before the (Edward) Snowden reporting, James Clapper, Obama's top national security official, lied to the faces of the country when he said that he wants to assure everybody that the NSA doesn't collect data," he said.

"The lesson is we don't blindly and uncritically accept the claims of the intelligence community, especially provocative claims about a foreign adversary, without seeing convincing evidence presented by them that those claims are true," Greenwald added.

Saying that more Republicans approve of Putin rather than Obama is the rankest of false dichotomies. Neither Obama or Putin are in a contest with each other.

As for:

"There's a reason Greenwald might want to protect his source."

He didn't say his source said anything. But what he did say was that the IA's are BSing us.

Trump has now called for an investigation on who leaked what to NBC. Let's have one. Enough of this "unnamed sources" nonsense. It helped get us into one war. We don't need another.

GA, you and some others have spent a month slinging insults. While you may think it cute, it merely shows that you're a partisan Democrat willing to so and say almost anything in the mistaken belief that it makes you look good. It doesn't.

Remember that the Republicans were in love with the FBI when they thought Hillary would be arrested any moment and thrown into jail.

When Comey waffled they were outraged and you were thrilled and the Republicans hated him. Then Comey flipped and you hated him and the Republicans loved him.

As for the hacking, I don't know who did it and am against anyone doing.

But the facts remain. The information was true.

What followed afterward was a clear case of ethnic cleansing, as Greek Cypriots were driven from their homes in northern Cyprus, and Turkish Cypriots left to south and moved north. To this day, Turkish troops occupy the northern half of the island, which is majority Turkish Cypriot and is called the Republic of Northern Cyprus (recognized only by Ankara), leaving the southern half to the Greek Cypriots.

Turkish democracy has always been fragile, with a well-documented history of coup d'etats. As Jeralyn noted, the Turks are far more concerned with the Kurds than with ISIS. Further, the Turks have historically been very wary of Russian intentions in the Black Sea region and the Middle East, and they zealously guard their airspace from Russian intrusion. In November 2015, they shot down a Russian military jet which they claimed had strayed over their territory on its southern frontier.

It's probably a mistake to believe that Turkey is in league with Russia. While the situation bears watching, what's currently taking place is a détente between the two nations, and not a wholesale reorientation of military alliances. Turkey is far more interested in furthering its economic ties with the European Union, and that's the direction it's looking, not to Moscow.