Hot off the Seattltimes

[ThaSaltCracka]

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm..._intel100.html
read and enjoy!

[MattHatter]

Bump!

Ouch.


Matt

[Wake up CALL]

Wouldn't publishing their copy off the classified document be better proof than an unidentified source? Oh they don't really have that access so an unidentified source is proof. OK, I understand! Now I am not saying those differences do not exist, in fact I would hope there are many diffferences in a classified document compared to one for public release. I just believe a higher standard of proof should be used in a responsible journalistic publication.


Wake

[ThaSaltCracka]

you may not have noticed this either
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...telside10.html

[MattHatter]

Classified version

"The activities we have detected do not, however, add up to a compelling case that Iraq is currently pursuing what INR would consider to be an integrated and comprehensive approach to acquire nuclear weapons. Iraq may be doing so, but INR considers the available evidence inadequate to support such a judgment. Lacking persuasive evidence that Baghdad has launched a coherent effort to reconstitute its nuclear weapons programs, INR is unwilling to ... project a timeline for the completion of activities it does not now see happening."

Public version

" ... most analysts assess Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program."



This is really shocking.

You must figure the paper indeed has a copy of this document in order to publish it. If only to protect itself legally. It must have vetted this somewhat. I'm assuming?


Anyone link me to the public version?


Matt

[Wake up CALL]

Thanks ThaSaltCracka,

That is closer to what I was seeking. Still it is just copy from an article. I still do not see this as the original clasified document from which we could all compare and see any differences. After all I could post something on an internet page and state it was from a classified document but that just doesn't make it so. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[ThaSaltCracka]

well it printed on the front page of the Newspaper as well. I should tell you the Seattle Times is not known as a radical/liberal paper. They are a very fair paper, except against the Yankees [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[ThaSaltCracka]

well to be honest, no one at the Seattle Times wrote this, it was so guy from Knight Rider press, I would assume they have or have seen the document.