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: geode00 who wrote (220167)	2/21/2007 9:33:17 PM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Gawd, you are dumb. Wilson was sent to investigate, see what the Iraqis were up to. He did not go to see if yellowcake had moved with or without French OKs or whether Niger upped its industrial output. If the Iraqis had made efforts towards getting yellowcake, it would have been significant vis-a-vis their intentions, which is what Wilson was supposed to check into. Then he lied about what he did and what he found [yes, the Iraqis had looked into buying yellowcake, a significant finding with regard to determining their intentions for reasons I think even you will recognize] and got his head handed to him for his lies.

To: geode00 who wrote (220167)	2/22/2007 12:21:40 AM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Is it true or false that a) Joe Wilson told one story to the Senate Intelligence Committee, and a different story in the NYT? b) Joe Wilson claimed that Cheney's office had sent him to Niger, which was a lie - the CIA had done it? b) Joe Wilson denied his wife got him the gig, which was also exposed as a lie? These are the points under question. Whether there is or is not an international consortium headed by the French (doesn't that fill you with confidence, considering the French record on proliferation) monitoring Niger's sale of yellowcake is completely and utterly besides the point. Now do you care to answer the points under question, or not?