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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: stockman_scott who wrote (39399)	8/22/2002 9:22:20 AM
From: KLP	Respond to of 281500

Scott, don't forget it is mostly the media drumming...And just what for one minute, makes you think you, or any of us for that matter, "would know about it...."??? Do you work for the CIA, or NSA, or the Administration top level, etc?? Perhaps the last administration would have leaked security information, but this one doesn't seem to have the same inclination. If they had it then we'd know about it...

To: stockman_scott who wrote (39399)	8/22/2002 9:29:11 AM
From: Rascal	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

I am not being fecescious when I say the real reason we do not have an articulated policy about why we are going to invade Iraq is because GW cannot articulate. Did anyone catch his live news conference with VonRumsfeld yesterday? He couldn't answer a question or finish a sentence. It was embarassing, especially when VonRumsfeld stepped in a few times to really answer the question. The contrast between the two was really scary. GW tried to make a joke saying "I heard you were good at these things (news conferences) and maybe I can pick up some tips." GW looked uncomfortable. He slowly ruminated on every questions and answered in the approved sound bites we know so well. (patient man, no decision, consult with, etc.) He sends out Condoleez and Delay to make his case. He can't use Powell because he doesn't agree and he can't use Cheney because someone might ask him a question about Halliburton or he might look too much like he is running the country. I don't think he is up to taking in vast quantities of information and processing same into a strategy.

To: stockman_scott who wrote (39399)	8/22/2002 9:33:18 AM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

I think they're waiting for more evidence...If they had it then we'd know about it... I think they're waiting to get all their ducks in a row, hoping Saddam doesn't start lashing out in desperation. For a week and a half, I've been posting tidbits that suggest a military buildup is underway. Use your common sense, what does that suggest? Could be disinformation, but if so, why? Confusing Saddam, maybe, but if so, why? My guess is that you'll have all the evidence on the day we attack, and not much sooner. Sometimes the NeoCons let common sense get in the way of common practice... I, for one, am not a neocon. But I will always prefer my own common sense to everyone else's common practice, if I think they are wrong.

To: stockman_scott who wrote (39399)	8/23/2002 3:52:46 AM
From: Eashoa' M'sheekha	Respond to of 281500

" Sometimes the _______ let common sense get in the way of common practice. " I dunno! Being a bulls-eye ( survey )centrist, I tend to look both ways before crossing the street. <G> I think there are good arguments for and against here , but at this point the arguments FOR look ( to moi ) weaker than the arguments AGAINST. My other statements and positions stand as posted unless the factors that have me leaning against_____ change. Debate is necessary.Answers are a must.Congressional & U.N. approval, in this case, should be mandatory. Will never change. Regards, KC PS: Thanks for all the articles you post here.