But that's my point: saying that the link is consistent with your own and others' preconceived ideas doesn't magically make it accurate. This is a textbook example of the kind of "post-truth" rhetoric that is flying around these days. The same is true about this. Two baseless sets of assumptions don't suddenly become supported once there's enough of them.I believe what the author is saying because the description of Manning fits spot-on with a handful of drop-outs and still-stragglers from Basic, and based on conversations with a few of my classmates that have were active duty and deployed solidifying my understanding that this description of Manning is exactly what they would've assumed.
But the same way I assumed that all the horrible shit Manning leaked was going on anyway, it would be mind-blowing to me if this person's account was not the spot-on truth about Manning.