Except that in the context of the discussion it impeaches the WMD example. Specifically 'natch' presents the argument that the government had bad data about WMD development and presented it as fact, so this action presented as fact might be just as fabricated. And my response was (and still is) that unlike the WMD allegations where no WMDs were ever discovered nor precursor laboratories, that some 'actor' (and again could be an individual, could be a group, could be a state actor) "meddled", and that term is imprecise but adequately conveys the difficulty of quantification, in the 2016 presidential elections of the United States.
My claim was simply that the two assertions, WMD development and election interference, had fundamental differences in terms of the factual basis. Which for me makes it an invalid comparison.
Now, had their actually been a WMD of some type and we got wrong whether it had been Iraq, Iran, or Saudi Arabia that had done the development. That would make it more similar to documented interference in an election by one or more actors.
Interesting to come back to this now as even the President Elect agrees with the Assessment that it was Russia that ordered the interference.
what are you basing that on?
based on the USG's own best evidence (in this article), this was a canned wordpress exploit that isn't even really that new.
So why, exactly, is it necessary to invoke an adversary with state-level resources?
edit: citation