They're worth every bit as much as your ex cathedra statements, Mr. Anonymous Expert.
LOL! Nice try, but no cigar. You see, I CITED my sources, whereas YOU merely spout off via your almighty keyboard.
Another interesting factoid: I have kept track of the number of times the "haw-haw-haw-nukes-in-country-LOL!" squad members have come back with anything louder than crickets chirping after having been directed to read that article: Zero.
I've read it. The money quote for me:
The whole cult of "national security" depends upon the cultivation of national insecurity.
How interesting that you would gloss over the CONTENT of the material, and fixate on one statement of opinion. Why, it's almost as if you're trying to AVOID the issue at hand, and use classical disruptor/agent provocateur/"paid-to-post" M.O.!
The key "nugget", of course, is, "One of these callers was in a position to know, and the other was in a position where he was actually paid to know." (And, the fact that this occurred is confirmed via a second source: "Hugh Sidey's Time column".)
If you are such a high-and-mighty ex-Federally-badged mucky-muck, Mr. Anonymous Expert
Now there you go putting words in my mouth. How droll -- and pathetic.
What I did during the course of my employment is none of your bloody business -- and therefore, any extrapolation you make regarding that employment (as per the above) is, to put it kindly, laughably arrogant on your part. In other words, I never said I was a "high-and-mighty ex-Federally-badged mucky-muck", and, to get back on track, your continued practice of "shooting the messenger" -- a logical fallacy of the basest sort -- says quite a bit about you, and nothing about me.
You do not like the message being conveyed, and, since you are incapable of "debunking" the source, you resort (incessantly!) to attacking the medium that conveys the message! Worse yet, you repeatedly assert that the messenger IS the source! This is in the face of the simple fact that the messenger has made no secret of the source, and has never claimed to be the source!
Tell me -- do you curse out your mailman when he deliveres registered letters you do not wish to receive? Do you call HIM a "high and mighty mucketty muck" too? LOL!
My anonymity seems to upset you. How sad. Unlike YOUR anonymity, MINE is of no consequence, as I do NOT issue ex cathedra declarations of "fact", using "command voice" to underscore my (ahem) "authority". YOU, on the other hand... well, if you're capable of any OTHER mode of operation, you're doing a fine job of disguising that capability.
And, if Christopher Hitchens was half as ballsy as he made himself out to be in his chest-thumping article, those "callers" would have names and be known to one and all. Cowards should be publicly exposed--but the only one I can name is Mr. Hitchens. Guess he likes being an inside player too much to do any public service...
Meanwhile, of course, you're relying on the same mainstream press that gave us Jayson Blair and Rathergate to "confirm" this tale...
Again: JEEP didn't get activated, and JEEP's kind of hard to cover up.
In other words, I never said I was a "high-and-mighty ex-Federally-badged mucky-muck",
Hmm. From Post #25: I've indeed worked for a federal service, although I wore their badge for a relatively short time
OK, got it. You never said anything remotely like that.
How sad. Unlike YOUR anonymity, MINE is of no consequence, as I do NOT issue ex cathedra declarations of "fact", using "command voice" to underscore my (ahem) "authority".
Oh, really? What do you call seven invective-filled posts to me, calling me a shill and worse for disagreeing with the notion that "Red Mercury" (or hafnium isomers) pose an imminent threat to life and limb, if not ex cathedra declarations of "fact", using "command voice" to underscore my (ahem) "authority"?