> I knew I shouldn't have linked to Greenwald.

I'm glad you did because he's a perfect example of what I'm talking about.

> There are concerns about biolabs. Nuland said exactly that. She even used the word "concern".

Greenwald did a great job directing you to the conclusion he wanted you to draw. Because even after, I assume, you've read his piece you still have the big question mark over your head, which is "what exactly is in the labs?" And that is the question that Putin wants on everyone's mind. That is the question he needs all over the internet. Because that question will also be on Russian minds, and Putin has filled in that blank with [WMDs designed to target Russians]. The bigger that question, the better Putin's lie works. Putin can't make that lie big on his own.

The counterintelligence term of art for Greenwald is that he's a "useful idiot" for Russia. Glenn Greenwald, as prolific a blogger he is, has no idea whatsoever about what's in those labs. But he's very sure that the utterance of the word "concern" has blown open the whole scheme. It's incredible to me that the whole piece you linked, over 2000 words, hinges on that one word. And now your opinion also hinges on that word.

Actually for all the talk about what's in the labs, it really does not matter. What matters is that everyone has a question about the labs, because when Russia attempts a false flag chemical weapon or biological attack, they will use the question on everyone's mind as a justification. It's called "muddying the waters" or as Steve Bannon put it "flooding the zone with shit". You and me sitting here on HN talking about biolabs is all part of manufacturing that justification.

> Am I just ignorant about non-weapons biolabs here?

Yes and so am I. So are 90% of us talking about the issue here. We have no business talking about biolabs. And yet it seems like all of the experts of biolabs are here on HN to tell us all of the nuance they've learned over the.... last few weeks since Putin wanted us all to be talking about Ukrainian biolabs.

> If being wrong about a thing disqualifies all your future reporting

It's about why they were wrong (100k troops on the border, tanks, equipment, and the US government saying that Russia is about to invade, yet they trusted Putin's word until the moment bombs started falling, when everyone else saw the obvious far in advance). They have blinders when it comes to Russia. They call Russian collusion a "hoax" (which again is also Putin's position) to this day even though Republican Senate investigators confirmed everything. Greenwald and Taibbi are consistently wrong regarding Russia and have been over a number of years.

What we witnessed last month during the build-up of the invasion was the resolution of two-competing worldviews constructed over a number of years. One worldview held that Putin is a master tactician, and a savvy genius who out-maneuvers the West consistently. The other worldview held that Putin is a psychopathic dictator, who is not a master tactician or even a good politician, but a thug and a tyrant. Predictions were made last month from these two competing camps and then they met reality; the reality that won was that Putin is a psychopath. So now you really have to call into question everything that was said from the people with the perspective that Putin is a genius tactician. How much of what they've argued had the wrong priors leading to faulty conclusions?

> go back and watch the media and Democratic politicians mock Romney when he suggested back in the 2012 Presidential Debates

Yes, maybe you shouldn't listen to those people either. This isn't about Republicans vs. Democrats, it's about wrong vs. right and who has a track record of being right about this topic. Perhaps we should all actually be listening to Mitt Romney a lot more!