posted on Jun, 18 2008 @ 07:36 AM
Okay, so reading through the article, this man has been branded a liar, a cheat, undependable, etc...
And our government took this man's information, whether they truly believed it or not, and spoke, as fact, that Iraq had WMDs? This entire article
speaks about how he was the secret informant that fed our government the information needed to justify the invasion. The article also speaks about how
suspect this guy and his information is. And now that things are all bad with Iraq, they are calling him out as "corrupt" and a blatant "liar".
Um... what is the government's purpose of exposing this guy and then admitting they ran with his "suspect" information, and now that s*** hit the fan,
they are running him into the ground. So... the government is obviously passing the blame... but at the same time admitting their inexcusable
ignorance at having listened to this guy? And even if they are using him as a patsy, they are showing to the public an image that they are utterly
incompetent while in the background knowing the real motives behind the invasion? I'm confused.
(visit the link for the full news article)