←back to thread

“How America took out the Nord Stream pipeline”

(seymourhersh.substack.com)
688 points hunglee2 | 6 comments | 08 Feb 23 12:50 UTC | HN request time: 1.123s | source | bottom
Show context
r721 ◴[08 Feb 23 18:53 UTC] No.34712869[source]▶
>The White House on Wednesday dismissed a blog post by a U.S. investigative journalist alleging the United States was behind explosions of the Nord Stream gas pipelines as "utterly false and complete fiction."

>...

>"This is utterly false and complete fiction," said Adrienne Watson, a spokesperson for the White House National Security Council. Spokespeople for the CIA and State Department said the same.

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/white-house-says-blog-post-...

replies(3): >>34712923 #>>34712934 #>>34712944 #
1. miguelazo ◴[08 Feb 23 18:59 UTC] No.34712944[source]▶
Was this included for comic relief? Or did you actually think we should take the CIA or State Department PR seriously?
replies(2): >>34713259 #>>34713675 #
2. jessaustin ◴[08 Feb 23 19:15 UTC] No.34713259[source]▶
It's a fair question, but those quotes are in TFA.
3. Sed47_ ◴[08 Feb 23 19:38 UTC] No.34713675[source]▶
I will definitely take a random substack blog more seriously. After all, he is citing "unnamed sources"! Very credible!
replies(1): >>34714118 #
4. nivenkos ◴[08 Feb 23 20:06 UTC] No.34714118[source]▶
It's not a random substack blog, it's one of the most famous journalists (a real one, no less!) in the world.
replies(1): >>34736436 #
5. Sed47_ ◴[10 Feb 23 06:45 UTC] No.34736436{3}[source]▶
A one with a long history of talking bullshit with nothing to back it (other than "anonymous sources").
replies(1): >>34811116 #
6. miguelazo ◴[15 Feb 23 21:50 UTC] No.34811116{4}[source]▶
Give us an example of when he was definitely wrong about something of substance. Not a minor detail, something that actually matters.