The article needs more converging evidence before it can be taken seriously. All it does is lay the thesis "Clinton's administration gave technology to China, who let it get to terrorist harboring countries."
As for support, it relies on two pieces of evidence:
1) The absence of awareness of the attack proves that the terrorists were using this technology
2) Lietner's statements testifying that Clinton gave this technology away.
The problems that need to be address before this can be taken seriously are:
1) You can't prove something with an 'observed absence'. How do you know that you simply didn't detect it, or if it didn't happen?
2) Rely on Lietner statements rather than chains of evidence, is arguement by authority. It is like me saying that something is true because my father told me so. It may or may not be true. The fact that someone says it is, doesn't mean anything.
3) There is an assumption, that the only source of this technology is from the Clinton administration. That is not likely true. There needs to be evidence that is the case.
4) There is an assumption that the only way this event could of happened was with the use of this technology. That is also not likely.
I for one, don't think this journalism is credible. You may, that is your right, but I urge you to keep this discussion grounded on fact, and the rhetoric down.
Facebook
Twitter