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: Nadine Carroll who wrote (219271)	2/18/2007 5:17:59 PM
From: jttmab	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

If it's 1998 or 2002 and you are getting information about Iraqi officials trying to buy yellowcake, what should your working assumption be? If it's 17 Mar 2003 1. You've found out that the Niger document was a forgery. 2. Every interview with an Iraqi scientist [with minders, without minders, in Iraq or out of Iraq] concludes with Iraq has no WMD. 3. Saddam's defecting son-in-laws tell you there are no WMD. 4. The Iraq WMD production facility that you had a tip on, turns out to be an alcohol factory. 5. The picture you have of a mobile weapons factory turns out to be nothing more than a picture of a truck that resembles a truck used for blowing up hydrogen balloons. 6. The agent you have in Saddam's inner circle says there are no WMD. 7. The UN is analyzing a site that has been determined to have been a site of WMD destruction. 8. Every tip you've gotten on WMD related sites when inspected turn up nothing. What would be your working assumption? jttmab