Discussion in 'Asia' started by onedomino, Feb 22, 2005.
And how much credibility should we give to an anonymous quote about second hand information which is heresay about what another agency is supposed to have thought of?
Talk about a shaky source!
That's ridiculous. Given all the estimates are recent, and that 15 is admittedly at the high end of the current estimates, the conclusion drawn that the 'rate of production' has increased during the last four years of Bush's administration is not supported by any data mentioned.
I conclude this paragraph is a hint of the authors contempt for Bush and how he's willing to discard logic and honest reporting just to take a stab at the President. It seems to be typical of this reporters past themes.
My first google hit on Knut Royce gave me this nugget of foresight:
Look, another shaky source!
I imagine all his stories are based upon such mysterious sources who:
1. Aren't in the administration.
2. Weren't involved in the discussions.
3. Can't name who briefed them second hand on what the discussions were about.
4. Are still wrong... no oil money has been used to pay for U.S. occupation efforts, after more than two years.
So I call bullshit on this author.
Separate names with a comma.