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 (220422)	2/22/2007 8:10:28 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

which story to the SIC and which story to the NYT story to the SIC: a Niger official had told him that Iraqi officials had visited Niger. Niger exports nothing but yellowcake and cowpeas. As documented in the SIC report. story to the NYT: He found nothing, and this proved there was nothing to find. As written in the op-ed. Normally the CIA tells its operatives to keep their mouths shut. Not in this case! Joe Wilson claimed that Cheney's office had sent him to Niger, which was a lie - the CIA had done it? yes. without Cheney's knowledge or approval. Plame was not in a position of authority to 'get' him anything Yes she was - she was a senior WMD analyst, and at her mere recommendation, her hubby, whose sole qualification was having been in country before, got the gig. She did it, ergo, she was in a position to do it. ) The Niger documents are a bald-faced forgery. Why did they appear in the SOTU even though they could not be verified and, in fact, did nothing to compromise the safety of the USA. There was A forged Niger document. That's true. However its is NOT what British intelligence based its report on, and the British report was the basis for inclusion in the SOTU, which specifically referenced British intelligence if you'll check the wording. The Brits are sticking by their intelligence. Bye the bye, bigmouth Joe Wilson claimed he had seen the forged document, and had spotted it for a forgery "because the names were wrong and the dates were wrong." Then the SIC pointed out to him that he had not laid eyes on the classified doc during the period in question, and he had to back down, having been caught in ANOTHER lie. What was little Dougie Feith doing and why was he doing it? Doug Feith and the DIA was looking at evidence that wasn't filtered by the CIA's asinine idea that secular Saddam couldn't possibly ally himself with Islamists. On this point, Dough Feith has been proved right and the CIA wrong.