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: jttmab who wrote (172602)	10/17/2005 3:30:43 PM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 281500

The Disgrace of Judy Miller and the New York Times stereooflies.com

To: jttmab who wrote (172602)	10/24/2005 1:59:57 AM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 281500

It was an obvious forgery. Was it beyond the capability of the CIA to ascertain that it was a forgery. First off, the information the CIA had is DIFFERENT than what the British had.. Bush CHOSE to believe the British had better sources than our own CIA in this instance (and sometimes they do). And the British have NOT backed off, or rescinded, that information. So if you, or the democrats, had a problem with what Bush said, it should be addressed to the British.. Or at least.. asking why Bush chose to believe British intelligence over our own "highly capable" HUMINT networks that were put into place by the previous presidential administration by the same CIA leadership that Bush foolishly chose to keep in place. (wink, wink, nudge, nudge) Hawk