Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaar";p="
Do some people actually want to argue that "some" of these Documents "prove" something, and others do not?
|
As a matter of simple logic, that is the case. The documents are unwarranted by the CIA; there is nothing with any of the documents that attest to their validity, context, etc. Some will prove to be reliable evidence of something; many will not. Many of the documents seized on by conservative bloggers as "proving" something fail to provide a "smoking gun" even if you assume the document is entirely valid and refers to what they assume it refers to.
But to address the implied argument here: the NYT is not arguing anything. They simply reported that several groups have questioned the inclusion of nuclear-related material on the site, enough that Negroponte decided he should review their availability.