"OlBlueEyes" wrote in message
...
"NOYB" wrote in
nk.net:


"OlBlueEyes" wrote in message
...
Jack Goff wrote in
:

On Wed, 02 Nov 2005 21:56:41 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

*JimH* wrote:
"OlBlueEyes" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in
k.net:

"bb" wrote in message
news On Wed, 2 Nov 2005 20:14:15 -0500, " *JimH*"
wrote:

As you did not provide a link to the article it carries no
weight.
BS.

bb

BS to you. Harry is famous for rewriting articles and posting
them as fact, and of creative editing of content.
Do a Google search on some of the principals in the article
(including the Iran-Contra arms dealer and Israel flack Michael
Ledeen) and you will find it is entirely factual.

OK. But I have yet to see a link to the original article being
quoted.

Regardless, that does not dismiss the responsibility of a person
who cuts/pastes an entire article and reports it as
original/unedited without posting a link to it.

This is especially true when that person has a history of editing
articles to meet his particular views, yet presenting them as
being original.




Giggle.

"When idiots are confused and addled, they tend to laugh nervously".

http://www.amconmag.com/2005/2005_11_07/feature.html

The article came from former left-leaning CIA people with an agenda.

I didn't know the Italian press was a front for the CIA. Maybe Novak
should have outed them too.

It's trash.

Then refute one statement made therein.

You CAN'T DO IT.

You're as impotent about this as Harry is about W's poll numbers.

You're two peas in a pod, you and Krause.

Refute a statement? It's completely he said/she said and conjecture. In
fact, the author even uses the words " a plausible scenario" and states " At
this point, any American connection to the actual forgeries remains
unsubstantiated ".

Michael Ledeen denies any connection with the Niger documents, but Giraldi
makes his entire speculative case on a leap of faith that Ledeen helped to
forge the document:

"Ledeen...would have been a logical intermediary in co-ordinating the
falsification of the documents and their surfacing, as he was both a
Pentagon contractor and was frequently in Italy. He could have easily been
assisted by ex-CIA friends from Iran-Contra days "


Of course, Giraldi has no proof. In fact, in the very last paragraph he
calls the document a *possible* forgery by Defense Department employees.

So as I said, this article is nothing more than expelled dead wood from the
CIA attacking their long-time nemeses over at Defense. It's trash.