Foreign Affairs Discussion Group Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (136184)	6/11/2004 12:34:51 AM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) of 281500

Sealed perhaps because it was in fact a CIA operation and not a police sting. Concealment of somebody other than Scott Ritter was required. Had it been a CIA sting (which is REALLY stretching all credulity), those records would certainly not have been sealed. Ritter would have been prosecuted to the full extent of the law and no CIA connection could ever have been proven, or admissible in a court of law. But like his sexual proclivities, that's irrelevant to whether he is right about the weapons of mass destruction and Saddam's position. But it sure damages his credibility, as does the $400,000 pay-off from an Iraqi investor who received oil allocations from Saddam's regime. The bottom line is that IT'S IRRELEVANT whether Ritter was right or wrong. He was just another "stopped clock" that's right twice a day. He could not produce any convincing evidence that would compete with the evidence of Saddam's non-compliance that had been amassed by years of "inspections"... Hawk

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next