Bites the dust. But hey, if you can't believe something reported by Robert Fisk, what can you believe?
Posted by Neal (Nukevet) at September 24, 2003 12:55 PM | TrackBackIs Richard Miniter any more credible?
Anyway, I almost blogged this, because I thought it was kind of funny.
He dispels the myth using bin Laden's and the CIA's statements, neither of which can be trusted to tell the truth.
It may be a myth, but his two sources of proof are negligable at best.
Speaking of myths!
https://www.itv.com/news/1243072.html
"The inspectors tasked with finding weapons of mass destruction in Iraq have still found nothing, according to reports.
The Iraq Survey Group's interim report will allegedly state that no chemical, biological or nuclear weapons - not even in "minute" amounts - have yet been found"
Ever get the feeling you've been had?
I'mmmmmm Baaaaaaaaccckkkk...............
Let's see here, b, your burden of proof is impossible to meet. You cannot say that because no evidence exists that Bin Laden was CIA financed that it doesn't clear us of that charge.
I have no proof that "/" was a brain donor either, does that give anyone pause to suggest that it must be true because there is NO evidence?
I know you love a mystery b, but sometimes, there really is nothing to be found.
Posted by: Mark (puggs) on September 25, 2003 03:47 PM"but sometimes, there really is nothing to be found."
Like the WMD's?
Posted by: / on September 26, 2003 09:34 AM