Foreign Affairs Discussion Group 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.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Orcastraiter who wrote (159969)	3/31/2005 6:18:21 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (2) of 281500

They did voice doubts about WMD...in fact they said the reason they were against the war was precisely because of that. They said give the weapons inspectors time to do their work. They could only "voice doubts" sotto voce because even though their own intelligence said that Saddam had WMDs, they knew to a 99% chance that the inspectors would find nothing whether there was anything to find or not. If their intelligence service had said that Saddam didn't have WMDs, then they would have said, "Our intelligence tells us that Saddam has nothing, and here's why, but just to be sure, let's have the inspectors in for six more months..." That would have been a much stronger case for them. They didn't say it because their intelligence was the same as everybody else's and they would have looked like total shills for Saddam. Chirac wanted to look like the new leader of the EU, not Baghdad Bob.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next