Cat peeking out of the bag?

On 11/12/04 13:51, in article , "Tom
Cooper" wrote:

Woody,
You're expecting a comprehensive report with historical accuracy. What
you're reading though is an intelligence report where SPEAR is reporting
only on the verifiable incidents a short time later without the benefit of
your historical sources. Make sense?

Explained that way, it does.

The document isn't inaccurate. It's probably just incomplete.

That doesn't make sence (either they're reporting, or not reporting at all),
but, well, OK... If nothing else it's good to have another opinion - that's
why I asked.


I wrote my comment a bit unclearly. My point is (in context) that it's
incomplete from a historical perspective.

Re. "conspiracy": I wouldn't say there is a consipiracy. I'd only say
that I
simply can't understand why should State Dept. keep USN documents back.
Can
you say what could be a reason?

I could, but then I'd have to kill you.

Well, that's also an answer.


My attempt at humor. Hard to grasp sometimes without the benefit of
personal interaction. It's all about security.

--Woody