You are intentionally trying to mistake my points.

Tom wrote: "Unfortunately, the Central Intelligence Agency, one of the sources we are talking about, consists of a few more than five people. You can, of course, say they are all lying."

My point is that the CIA data might be traceable to the "5", and until the CIA releases any data, its all just a bunch of "because I say sos". And, yet again (which you are dodging), teh CIA "I say Sos" on WMD have been entirely false- why should I trust them on terrorists? As I said TWO DAMN POSTS AGO- its like asking the town p[athalogical liar if he stole the jewells, and then taking his word on it.


Tom wrote: "What other source would you accept as valid corroboration?"
"You can duck a question better than Neo ducks bullets. What would you consider a credible source of intelligence information? If, as I suspect, the answer is "nobody," just say so. "


Again- Asked and answered... Which is why I think you are grandstanding. If you read my posts at all you would find it. Let me do it for you tom:

Evidence means evidence. If Documents, photos and paper-trails exist, and if they are made public by the CIA and corroborated by just one other source, I would be swayed.

By journalistic standards, this is actually a very low bar.

Gettin too old fer readin Tom? Do I need to use larger font and smaller words for ya? Or are you really just grandstanding for your cheerleaders here ? ;-)

Davin L.