SI
SI
discoversearch

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 -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: stockman_scott who wrote (28798)5/7/2002 8:04:06 PM
From: LindyBill  Respond to of 281500
 
By Robert Scheer


You published Robert Scheer on the thread. Now I will have to wash out my computer.



To: stockman_scott who wrote (28798)5/7/2002 8:32:45 PM
From: FaultLine  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 281500
 
With its admission that an alleged link between Saddam Hussein and the Sept. 11 attacks doesn't exist, the Bush administration has lost its most compelling argument for invading Iraq

I'd like to think this turn of events belies those who claim that everything is manipulated. If that were true, one would think that this report would have never seen the light of day. Speaks well for the Republic...

--fl@butthenhtheremaybeahiddenagenda.com



To: stockman_scott who wrote (28798)5/7/2002 9:18:21 PM
From: Nadine Carroll  Respond to of 281500
 
Scheer is really out to make a fool of himself, isn't he?

The hawks' point about Saddam Hussein was never that he was behind 9/11 -- though it would have been a good casus belli -- but that he will use nuclear weapons the minute he lays his hands on them, and that is one or two years from now, tops.

This reasoning has not made it into whatever Cloud Cuckoo Land Scheer inhabits, since he never even deigns to mention the point.