Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Alighieri who wrote (150157)	8/21/2002 11:50:13 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1583902

Opposition is mounting at home, too. At a hearing on Capitol Hill focusing on the issue of attacking Iraq, Scott Ritter, the former chief U.N. weapons inspector in Iraq, said the Bush administration had failed to make the case for war. "We cannot go to war based upon rumor. We cannot go to war based upon speculation. Before we send tens of thousands of American troops off to fight, kill and be killed in our name, we have to be absolutely certain that there is a threat there worthy of war." There is something stange about Ritter. It is very odd. At the time when he resigned I thought it was nothing short of a heroic act, as he felt so strongly that we were being deceived by Saddam. Now, several years later, after Saddam has had NO ONE to keep an eye on his activities for 4 years, Ritter believes Saddam isn't a threat. The inconsistency is glaring. If you believed him in '98 (and I did), you can't believe him now. The other nations "jumping ship" prematurely are meaningless. They'll all sign on when we make our commitment. I continue to hope the CIA can arrange to have Saddam assassinated before we have to go to war.

To: Alighieri who wrote (150157)	8/22/2002 2:02:55 AM
From: tejek	Respond to of 1583902

Bush's drive to oust Saddam received another sharp rebuke this week from a close ally: Canada. Canadian Defense Minister John McCallum was quoted as saying his country would not support a U.S. move against Saddam, declaring, "As it stands now, it seems very unlikely that we would participate in a war against Iraq." Opposition is mounting at home, too. At a hearing on Capitol Hill focusing on the issue of attacking Iraq, Scott Ritter, the former chief U.N. weapons inspector in Iraq, said the Bush administration had failed to make the case for war. "We cannot go to war based upon rumor. We cannot go to war based upon speculation. Before we send tens of thousands of American troops off to fight, kill and be killed in our name, we have to be absolutely certain that there is a threat there worthy of war." Al, the whole thing is turning into this strange comedy drama. While Bush today was saying he will go slow and weigh all the facts, T. Delay, the majority whip, is in Houston going on that we are at war with Iraq and need to keep moving.......and that there can be no apologists whatever that means. Yesterday, Bush was with Rumsfield and was trying to explain the world's reaction to the possible war with Iraq.....he said something like everyone was running around confused and, and......then for the millionth time in two years, he was at a lost for words and turned to Rumsfield for help, and Rumsfield shouts out "its a frenzy, its a feeding frenzy". Its like they were totally nonplussed by the strong reaction to their desire to go to war with Iraq. Talk about not having the pulse of the nation. Then I was reading a sort of letter to the editor from one of Cheney's friends [I should have posted it]. The guy went on and on about how Cheney was one of the best VP's to hit the earth, and that Bushed leaned on him like no other president has done before. By the end of the letter, you were sure that the Cheney was the real president and not Bush. This has got to be one of the more bizarre administrations. ted

To: Alighieri who wrote (150157)	8/22/2002 10:10:08 AM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1583902

Bush's drive to oust Saddam received another sharp rebuke this week from a close ally: Canada. Canadian Defense Minister John McCallum was quoted as saying his country would not support a U.S. move against Saddam, declaring, "As it stands now, it seems very unlikely that we would participate in a war against Iraq." If the Canadian defense minister did give out a sharp rebuke it wasn't contained in that quote. "As it stands now, it seems very unlikely that we would participate in a war against Iraq.", does not amount to a sharp rebuke or even a mild one. Tim