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: Sun Tzu who wrote (185638)	4/25/2006 8:58:49 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

How is it that it took so little research by armatures to figure out the Niger report was fake and in fact some of the people listed on it were not even in the government at the time of its supposed occurrence. How is it that after Bush cited British intelligence with regard to information that Saddam was seeking to obtain Uranium from Niger, the British HAVE NOT RESCINDED their analysis on THEIR information?? Btw, the fake report was obtained via Italian intelligence sources and then passed to the CIA, as I recall. Mr. Wilson basically went to Niger, had tea, met with some old buddies from his time as Ambassador there, and came to the conclusion that the report was fake. But the Brits have their own source(s), which apparently do not rely upon these documents. So I guess you'll have to ask them... (I know I tried while I was there, but the Brits I worked with either didn't know, or were pretty tight lipped). Hawk

To: Sun Tzu who wrote (185638)	4/25/2006 9:03:52 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Btw, I noticed that didn't bother to comment on Naji Sabri's information that Saddam was stockpiling some 500 tonnes of Chemical Weapons.. Which, coincidentally speaking, would just about match of chemical material that would be required to fill some 6,000 Chemical bombs (as I recall from speaking with a SME while I was with the ISG). And, as I recall, UNSCOM inspectors discovered documents that that indicated Iraq lied by claiming it had used only 13,000 Chemical warheads against Iran, when their own accounting to UNSCOM in 1991, claimed they had used 19,000 of them. More coincidence? So... should we believe him on some things, and then just disregard him when the information he provides is not convenient to the partisan politics of the day?? Hawk