There you go again. What accusation? You haven't shown one yet. Where did I accuse you or Ami of anything?H, you are NOT this dense
The implied accusation was claiming that either Ami or I, or both were laying claim that the selected NIE info that was leaked couldn't be trusted because it dared to show something negative about the current war. I don't think I need to paste your quote a 3rd time, do I?? I guess I do....following only single responses from Ami & myself came
"Ooooh, so they're only right when the administration can cherry pick them for tidbits that support their claims to convince the US to go to war, but when their conclusions point to something unfavorable to the administration, well, they can't be trusted"So, if not Ami or I, then
WHO is claiming the current leaked NIE info can't be trustedI speculated on what the new rules were for accepting the conclusions of NIEs and made a generalization.What new rules? When were they applied? Was there a meeting we missed? How come we weren't provided any memos?
If you don't like it when anyone besides yourself makes generalizations, toughI have no problem with generalizations. We do that all the time. But if you're not going to practice what you preach, don't be pulling out the victim card if someone starts misrepresenting your position. We'll just have to chalk that outrage up as an apparent persecution complex, as established by yourself of all people