Geez the means it was meant to be funny! I didn't mean to start another bash-fest We're all wrong on here at times -- it's no big deal. I just remembered that treeman vigorously insisted it was a foreign source and I thought it would be funny finding some quotes. That was before we (or I) knew much about treeman and his background on the issue, and I remembered thinking he was a nut .
haven: There's actually quite a bit of logic behind the Iraq and Iraq/Al qaeda ideas, and initially that is certainly where the evidence pointed (like when the former UNSCOM inspectors looked at it and said it was identical to Iraqi anthrax they had destroyed)... As far as mistakes go, at least this one had logic behind it. The logic still stands, BTW (Iraq and an Iraq/Al Qaeda alliance with WMD is still a distinct possibility, so don't bother trying to use my mistake to argue against that logic). Somehow I don't think that book sales were what was driving this one. What about all the guys who didn't sell any books - who only testified to Congress? Only one woman said that she thought it was a lone nut (I don't remember her name, but I believe it was the woman described here) - everyone else had Iraq or Iraq/Al Qaeda at the top of their lists. Book deal or no book deal. Major: I don't mind the bashing. It was inevitable that I got an actual issue wrong... I am frequently wrong on details (and don't mind when I'm corrected), but more often than not - on these types of subjects - I am right on the meat. But that's OK. Let glynch and everybody else vent. Being consistently wrong must be hard...
Personally, I think the only thing that matters is that this idiot (or idiots) are caught and then tried. I don't think too many really give a flip if you were right or wrong. That being said, I'm happy you're taking it so well... who cares... just catch the guy, right?
Well said DoD! Although, some already mentioned really do care. I find it odd how we take things so seriously and personally on here (I'm not accusing, I do it all the time)!
You always respond as if I were about 5 steps further along than I am. I don't think it was a bad supposition. It was the degree of certainty that all these people used that bothered me. I thought, originally, that it was more likely to be a foreign source, too. But I sure as hell wouldn't have gone on the record as being certain. Such certainty on ambiguous issues almost always means someone is angling from a career perspective.
