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: Nadine Carroll who wrote (41363)	9/1/2002 12:48:19 PM
From: JohnM	Respond to of 281500

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. No, this is your own idea, John. The cornerstone of the discussion whether to invade Iraq rests on the judging the likelihood of Saddam's getting and using WMDs, passing them to terrorists for deniability, successfully evading attempts at containment, etc. The argument does not rest on punishment, but on prevention. Hey, the quote you offer from my post says you are arguing with a straw person. I said the 9-11 ties were only one (don't you hate it when folk shout at you) of the cornerstones. The other is the wmd. The argument, unfortunately, at least one of the ones offered by the Bush folk, is precisely punishment. Tie him to 9-11 and they will ratchet up the war machine even further. They are changing their argument, even as we type, to emphasize the wmd, because (a) the 9-11 argument didn't work (even though Woolsey, among others, has all but said it happened but now, evidently, doesn't have strong evidence) and (b) they can get support only if they emphasize the wmd argument.