VOLTAIRE'S PORCH-MODERATED Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : VOLTAIRE'S PORCH-MODERATED

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: abstract who wrote (60140)	12/24/2003 3:17:49 AM
From: Sully-	of 65232

One more point...... "Tell me how you respond to this item:" Per your link, it's a breaking story..... Well, I don't exactly see which claim from the SOTUA they are talking about anywhere. However, I'll assume it's the uranium issue....... .....In the speech Jan. 28, President Bush cited British intelligence in asserting that Hussein had tried to buy uranium from an unnamed country in Africa. The White House later said the claim should not have been made...... As far as I know, the British still stand by their claim. This is but one of many reasons used to prove that Saddam failed to adhere to the Gulf War cease fire agreement & the ensuing 17 UN resolutions. Almost every reason cited by the Bush Administration has turned out to be legitimate & accurate. Not bad when relying on the best "estimates" of our intelligence agencies. And there is absolutely no doubt that Saddam violated those resolutions for more than a decade. Then there's the links to terrorist organizations. Let's not forget that Saddam did have a brutal, repressive regime (also stated by the Admin frequently prior to the war). <font size=4> So, the Bush Admin fessed up that the uranium issue wasn't appropriate to mention in the SOTUA (not that it wasn't true) & the British still assert it is true. I'm not overly concerned thus far. I don't expect the President to get everything 100% right on issues like this. I understand that gathering intelligence is not a precise science. I do expect them to be substantially right however. IMO, they were. So what exactly is your point? Are you asserting that this is a lie by Bush? Should we Impeach? Was the war completely wrong because of this? Please enlighten me specifically what this means to you.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next