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: Hawkmoon who wrote (172563)	10/16/2005 7:48:45 AM
From: jttmab	Read Replies (2) of 281500

If so, the information Bush relied upon was from MI6, not the CIA. And to this day, the Brits have not rescinded the validity of their source.. (rumoured to be French intelligence sources since the Niger mines are French operated). It was an obvious forgery. Was it beyond the capability of the CIA to ascertain that it was a forgery. The IAEA figured it out pretty damn quick. The US admits it was a forgery. Are you telling me that the Brits are still claiming that it wasn't a forgery? French intelligence sources? Utterly crap logic. It's no wonder that Rumsfeld thought Saddam had WMD if he used crap logic like that. The source had been previously held to be credible.. passed a poly.. blah, blah.. Partly. Either sometimes he lies and sometimes he doesn't or maybe polys aren't all that reliable. But that said, the stories of some of the suspects seem suspicious as well. Somewhere in between lies the truth. Or a different truth altogether. We have no real way of knowing whether the informant was passing information that he knew we wanted to hear, whether it was a hoax, a disrupted attack, or disinformation. jttmab

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next