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: Win Smith who wrote (219286)	2/18/2007 6:24:34 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 281500

Of course, that's the only possible way it could be interpreted One could try interpreting it in some other way - except that it doesn't make any sense, as nobody could find any possible national security harm involved in the supposed outing of a supposedly covert agent. I say supposedly because not even Fitzgerald is willing to stipulate that she was actually covert. The old favorite White House conspiracy interpretation blew up when Armitage confessed to being the leaker. At least it should have blown up, had the believers in it been susceptible to logic. As for the Iraq war, I said then and I say now, that while Israel considered Iraq a threat, Iran was and certainly now is, a much bigger threat, and if they could have ordered a US war, it would have been with Iran.