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 : Don't Blame Me, I Voted For Kerry -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: American Spirit who wrote (74212)	3/6/2006 2:55:03 PM
From: Dan B.	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 81568

Re: "The CIA confirmed Atta was in the US at the time Cheney lied and claimed he was in Prague." What the hell are you writing? ATTA was long gone when Cheney spoke. Nevermind...geesh. At any rate, the CIA most certainly NEVER confirmed that ATTA was in the US at the time when he is still said by Czeckoslovakia to have been in Prague. If you think the CIA did so, provide the link proving such. It isn't there, because ATTA was in fact not accounted for by the CIA during the timeframe in question. I've seen the speculation that since no record of his leaving on a jet plane exists, he may well have stayed here. That's not CIA confirmation of anything. The CIA pinpoints him both before and after the timeframe in question, not during. Dude, I've shown the thread plenty of evidence found despite Saddams well known desire to hide many of his activities as well as possible. Tariq Aziz says Salmon Pak didn't train Saudis on the fuselage we know was there. That's the best you've got to debunk Salmon Pak. Boy, THERE is a grand font of truth, he was only Saddam's guy for years and years and years. You might as well debunk evidence of Iraq setting its sights on America with statements from Baghdad Bob. You've debunked nothing, the sources are highly credible, yet you write that there is no evidence of an Iraq Al Qaeda connection. You are just wrong, and in denial of long established facts and evidence not debunked at all. Dan B.