"These reports were likely corroborated by unrelated sources (please show where they were not)"
No, they were not. Salman Pax boiled down to two individuals linked through the INC. In fact, claimer one REFERRED the CIA to his verifier. "My buddy will tell you the same story" is not verification. I don't have the links right in front of me, but I promise publically rght now (and do hold my feet to the fire on this) that I will get them to you as soon as I am on the computer that has the links in memory.
"and El-Baradei and Blix public reports were not “authorized UN sources,†and were therefore taken with a measure of salt -- as stated."
Sorry, this makes no sense. The two chief inspectors for the UN, and their reports before the UN, are not authorized UN sources? The fact that we refused to believe those reports- rejected them on the spot, in fact (taken with two bags of salt, one might say) does NOT indicate that we were exercising due dilligence.
"whereas the road to Syria remains publicly unexplored at this time."
Yes, as with Yetis, black helicopters and SpaceAliens, the lack of evidence for a proposition X only supports the theory that there was a coverup.
Cheers
Current Events » in reply to re: The facts remain . . .
re: re: The facts remain . . .
The whole thread (39 posts)
- Pressure builds on U.S. to explain lack of Iraq weapons
- re: The Loser!
- The Winner!
- So...
- re: Lewinsky flap . . .
- Repeating lie doesn't make it the truth
- re: So...
- So...
