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: JohnM who wrote (40499)	8/28/2002 12:42:09 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Well, the Saletan argument, as I read it, was that Cheney lacked evidence ...more than that, it was that Cheney's arguments relied on proving the links between Saddam and Al Qaeda for which he had no evidence. But it's a straw man; Cheney's real arguments relied on Saddam's track record of regional aggression and noncompliance with the signed armistice.

To: JohnM who wrote (40499)	8/28/2002 1:15:41 PM
From: KLP	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

John...who would you think credible CURRENTLY? Current information. And honestly, if you think your questions are valid (and I believe some are)....why don't you use those credentials and write the administration ....get some answers. Or better yet, see if you can get on Rush (don't choke on your coffee here...<g> -- I don't have him on, but hubby does in the car when we do errands on the weekend...) Rush has what...40 million listeners...and does take callers with different opinions than his...so does Hannity, and so does O'Reilly. Speaking of broadcasters, wonder what Ken Hamblin thinks of the Iraq question....He's quite sensible I think. And, frankly, it will take someone with more credibility than Cheney to persuade me. Or a Cheney who elects to take my kinds of questions seriously.