Dave Hinz wrote:

Was that the link at the Washington Post? I don't see that it'd go
anywhere positive to get into a "whose source is more definative than
the other" spitting contest, would it? I mean, a left-leaning source
will
say one thing, the CIA says another, and neither of us really have a
chance of finding out the real facts.

On one of the rare occaisions I watched FOX cable news I saw
an interview with four persons identified as 'regular contributors'
to FOX news. They were discussing bias in the press. The interviewer
asked them to name a major newspaper they thought was relatively
unbiased and accurate. Two of them named the Washington Post.

Your presumption that one cannot know facts is also wrong. You
can learn objective facts about WMD production and compare that
to what various sources are claiming. You can look at the door
on the side of the reaction vessel in the CIA photo and ask
youself, does that look like it was for adding or removing
liquids like growth media or does it look like it was for
adding or removing chunks of solid material like aluminum?

As another example, Padilla is accused of conspiring to make a
radiological dispersion weapon (aka dirty bomb) by wrapping
a quantity of Uranium with high explosives. Since wrapping
Uranium with high explosives is not how one makes a radiological
dispersion device there is somehting seriously wrong with the
prosecutor's claims. But if you don't pay attention, you'd
never know that.


Obviously, you're not going to convince me that SH was lilly-white on

this one, ...

Which of course no one has tried to do, that is precisely the
sort of exaggeration that one expects from a person who cannot
back up his remarks with fact.

--

FF