So, where are(were) those WMDs?

[Ashock]

"Oh, and isn't this a major enough story to be followed up on by the so-called major networks?"

Might they not want some kind of confirmation beyond "someone who has a vested interest in them having been shipped out by the Russians has learned from a "reliable source" that they were shipped out by the Russians"?

I'm not saying it didn't happen, although I strongly suspect that to be the case. Corroborating evidence is always helpful before one goes trumpeting something from the minarets.

Oh, and I love the ad for "stolen honour" in the middle of the story. Very classy and unbiased-like.

Jester
[right][snapback]58572[/snapback][/right]

So, in your opinion, The Washington Times is not a reputable enough source? Would you react the same way if the word "Times" would be preceded by the words "New York"?

As far as the russkies are concerned, well this is easy. The reason the story came out now, is because Putin wants Bush to win, so he leaked this info now. These days (as always has been the case), the russians will do anything (and I mean anything) to further their goals. Now, they would not make this up as this is a very serious matter that does not cast them in a good light, but they *will* go as far as admitting to something like that if it suits their purposes. In a case like this, they simply figured that the positives stemming from a Bush re-election, outweigh the possible negatives that come out from this story, at least for them.
There's always been rumours and allegations that the weapons were ferried out of Iraq before the US troops went in. There's never been concrete enough proof. Well, this simply confirms those rumours.

Believe me, I understand that you will fight tooth and nail to find a reason to dismiss this or anything else that will make the present administration look better, but that's ok with me.


-A