Eric, you've finally succeeded in boring the crap out of me.

__________________
2010 528Xi
I demand justice.
Or, if there must be injustice, let it be in my favor.

Reynold's Wrap: it's not just for hats anymore.

LOL...On a side note Eric just acknowledged that FOX news is a credible news source. The example he used to justify his Left Wing Blog news can easily be applied to FOX news.

Welcome aboard Eric.

__________________

An unwavering defender of those I see worth protecting.

"promote the general welfare, not provide the general welfare"

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

No, I said that it was Rebound's favorite source. That rules it out as a credible source.

As for the Niger uranium documents being forgeries, every single news source I am aware of gave the same exact facts. To quote the CNN article posted above:

Sources said that one of the documents was a letter discussing the uranium deal supposedly signed by Niger President Tandja Mamadou. The sources described the signature as "childlike" and said that it clearly was not Mamadou's.

Another, written on paper from a 1980s military government in Niger, bears the date of October 2000 and the signature of a man who by then had not been foreign minister of Niger in 14 years.


I guess nobody sent Rebound the memo on that one. He still thinks the Niger documents were authentic, Iraq tried to buy yellowcake uranium from Niger, and that Joe Wilson was wrong when he said the story was false.

It was the Bush Administration that used forged documents as evidence for both Colon Powell's presentation to the United Nations and for Dubya's state of the union address. Joe Wilson called attention to this in this article he wrote for the New York Times:

What I Didn't Find in Africa

And for that, conservatives are running around calling him "borderline insane"??

__________________


my experience on X5world when I spend too much
time posting in political threads in the lounge...

Opinions are fun, especially when listed as sources.

__________________

An unwavering defender of those I see worth protecting.

"promote the general welfare, not provide the general welfare"

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

"If a news article is quoting a source, and other than the quotes, they do not give any commentary, then either the article is true, or the writer lied and misquoted the source. Either the source was quoted correctly or they weren't. There is nothing "left" or "right" about that".

You were claiming that a Far Left Wing Blog was a credible news source regardless of their obvious Left leaning slant.

So I gather when FOX news quotes a source in News report you take what is reported as factual and not Right Wing Propaganda.

Correct. For example, Fox News will have an article that says something like this:

A Pentagon spokesman tells Fox News that 68 Taliban were killed in an airstrike today south of Kanduhar. According to the spokesman, no civilians were killed as has been claimed by the Taliban.


There is nothing "right wing" about this, and yes I'm sure the Pentagon spokesman did indeed say what Fox News said he did. So yes, the article is factual.

Is that Pentagon spokesman telling the truth? That is a whole other question which, typically, the Fox News article will not even address or comment on. Again, nothing "right wing" about that.

As for the Raw Story article I posted, they report that several CIA sources said something about the job of a CIA agent. If you believe that Raw Story's article is incorrect, then you are implying that they lied and the CIA sources did not say what they reported.

If you want you can imply that the CIA sources lied about their own agent's job, and I suppose that is possible. But since it's classified information you seek (finding out the job specifics of a covert agent), I would think the word of "CIA sources" would be as close to the truth as you are going to get.

__________________


my experience on X5world when I spend too much
time posting in political threads in the lounge...