Replies

I take it you have a "take" on all of this. So... what is it.

My take on it is pretty straightforward. I believe Hitchens is telling the truth. I believe that his two sources are as credible as he says they are, and, I believe that he is credible. His personal politics differ from mine, but, he strikes me as an honest person, and he is held in high regard by people such as Ann Coulter, who I also judge to be a credible person.

In short, he is not some spittle-chinned lunatic sputtering on the streetcorner handing out mimeo'd screeds typed out on his 50 year old Underwood in some flophouse (if you've been to NYC you know the type ;)

So, we have a credible person, relating a very sobering incident that he personally experienced.

I won't say "it doesn't get more real than that", because, yes, it does "get more real than that" -- but not by very much.

The implication is that the potential for something truly ugly -- a bona fide nuclear weapon -- NOT a "dirty bomb", but the genuine article -- the potential is viewed as real enough to trouble those who are "in a position to know, and ... in a position where he was actually paid to know."

And THAT is real enough to trouble ME.

Moving right along...

I used to get pissed at "the crew" that inevitably shows up, like crockwork, to "debunk" the truth.

Now, I feel sorry for them.

I mean, on the one hand, yeah, it's a job. But man oh man, you've got to have pity on someone who's got to stoop that low just to pay the rent.