Announcement

**Chris 62** · January 22, 2003, 13:22

More likely they are gremlins.

Un-named sources=no sources

**KrazyHorse** · January 22, 2003, 13:23

Originally posted by Chris 62
Kitty, an un-named "source" is hearsay, and thus not believeable.

I didn't say it was; I was giving an (apparently believable) source which quotes the (possibly believable) unnamed source, in response to SpencerH's query.

**KrazyHorse** · January 22, 2003, 13:25

Originally posted by SpencerH

That link (source) is not even close to being legitimate.

Spence, I don't really see the US outright grabbing oil for itself, either. I provided the best source I could find on it with a quick google search...

**Chris 62** · January 22, 2003, 13:27

Which perpetuates a fairey tale, Kitty.

Bushie rarely has leaks in his cabinet, and something like that would be major, as well as being foolish policy.

**KrazyHorse** · January 22, 2003, 13:30

Not at all. I put that source there for people to judge for themselves. It sounds like speculation on the part of a source whom I'm assuming has enough of a connection with the current admin that his claim to having been briefed by the admin as to their possible future intentions is credible on the face of it. That in itself is newsworthy, as long as the story is reported fairly, IMO...

**TCO** · January 22, 2003, 13:31

Could you put some more caveats in there, Kitty?

**KrazyHorse** · January 22, 2003, 13:32

I'm training to be a Roland...

**Maroule** · January 22, 2003, 13:33

as any junior journalist will tell you, most of the leaks are intentional : in that case it could be to test the reaction of voters/allies/the arab world, whatever

I'm not saying this is necessarily the case here, I'm no intern in the WH (too dangerous)

Anyway, my point was that getting its hands on iraq's resources is in all probability higher on the US agenda than on the French one. We don't have anybody from the oil lobby in our gouvernment.

**Chris 62** · January 22, 2003, 13:33

Nice attempt at double talk Kitty, worthy of a Pillar of the community.

Un-named source means it's made up to fool the rubes.

**TCO** · January 22, 2003, 13:35

Originally posted by Frogger
I'm training to be a Roland...

Nah. You're too clear. You need to mix obscure comments with good points. That will really keep me off balance.

**KrazyHorse** · January 22, 2003, 13:36

I've already said I don't believe it, Chris...

Here:

I don't believe it

Unlike some people (present company excluded, of course

) I don't try to convince people of things I believe to be false in order to influence their opinions in a direction I deem positive...

**Chris 62** · January 22, 2003, 13:39

So, your saying you don't believe it?

**TCO** · January 22, 2003, 13:39

Hey what ever happened to our analysis that Poly was a time-suck?

**KrazyHorse** · January 22, 2003, 13:40

It is, and if and when I feel time-pressured again, I'll pull the plug. I'm okay for now....

**TCO** · January 22, 2003, 13:41

Originally posted by Chris 62
So, your saying you don't believe it?

Hey...I met a girl.

Can I still have a NY hawtie?

Announcement

France Vows To Block UN Resolution on Iraq War

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment