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: carranza2 who wrote (41358)	9/1/2002 12:21:17 PM
From: JohnM	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 281500

You do appear to have a thing about me. Same ol' tone. As to the truth of the story, you make a statement that cannot be contradicted, at least by me or anyone else who reads this forum, i.e., "we" will never know its truth. That is self-evident. But does it mean that others may know things "we" don't that corroborate it? But, of course that could be possible. The problem with that is it doesn't help me think about the Iraqi situation. It may help those indeterminant others to do so. I'm interested in the public discussion of the evidence; not whether Cheney know something I do not. God help us if he doesn't. The public discussion of whether to invade Iraq has, as one of its cornerstones, whether he can be implicated in 9-11. It was my impression that these stories were brought forward to make that tie. They don't. If the point of the stories is to make a tie with attacks on US bases and ships in the ME in the 90s, that would not be surprising at all. If it is true, can be corroborated. etc., the fact that it doesn't directly implicate Saddam in 9/11 is utterly irrelevant. A cassus belli would clearly exist. To do what? Invade Iraq because of the attacks on US troops in the ME in the 90s? That, frankly, doesn't make a lot of sense. The possible 9-11 connection, the wmd arguments, those make sense. Just need evidence.