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 (185678)	4/26/2006 1:53:50 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

The question remains, a lot of people easily managed to see it as the fake it was. Why was Bush so desperate to accept it? Bush did not quote the CIA analysis related to Niger. He cited British intelligence obtained from a third country (rumoured to be the French). And the British continue to stand by their claim. smh.com.au Britain cannot tell the United States how it knew that Iraq tried to get uranium from Niger because the information originated from a third country, Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said, without identifying the country. Thus, the issue of any alleged plagiarism is irrelevant to my point. Now Sun... Is there a reason you're not addressing the information directly from one of Saddam's inner circle that he had squirreled away 500 metric tonnes of Chemical Weapons? Message 22389796 Information of this nature, especially given the access of the source to such information, was absolutely compelling (given that Sabri was likely Polygraphed). However, it's clear that such information could not have been conveyed to the public at large, given where it was derived from. Seems to me this information, from the perspective of determining "probable cause" for overthrowing Saddam, outweighs any report over Niger, or plagiarism.. etc.. Hawk