Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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 -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: carranza2 who wrote (107442)	7/23/2003 2:55:10 PM
From: Jacob Snyder	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

<Care to name a few of his credible CIA sources? Unless you can name them and vet their credibility, your statement is purely speculative.> Two can play this game. Care to name and vet the credibility for the UK's Chad/uranium claim? Or are you willing to trust, without being able to verify, that their Intel is credible?

To: carranza2 who wrote (107442)	7/23/2003 4:08:15 PM
From: JohnM	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Ah, the ol' rhetorical strategy of throw a label at an opponent rather than address an argument. Take it, c2, as a given of the craft that Hersh has strong ties with many CIA personnel. No one who knows anything about investigative reporting disputes that. You can argue that Hersh naively believes his sources (Bill) or that his sources only have axes to grind and so shouldn't be believed (I think that's uw's position), but you can't argue he doesn't have quite a few such sources. I don't have to name the sources. David Remnick, the present editor of The New Yorker, has that obligation. Since their reputation is on the line, my guess is they have done so. Oh, his stories have stirred the waters. Officialdom reacts or his sources would dry up and he would go unpublished. My friend, you are just flailing because you do not like the message.