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 (45915)	9/21/2002 7:35:20 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

The Bush folk continue to feel they can ask for an invasion without evidence that an immediate threat exists. These questions simply ask them to put their evidence on the table. What about Blair's dossier on Iraq? Isn't that evidence? Every time evidence is presented, the anti-war folks pretend it doesn't exist, and quote useful idiots like Ritter again. The nature of the threat has changed; threats are less visible now. Not only can Tom Friedman's "superempowered angry man" act, others can strike from hiding using a terrorist as a human cruise missile. This means that some cases will have to be built on circumstantial evidence. I would respect the the opponents more if they didn't just dismiss the case presented as 'no evidence, no evidence' because there are no troops massing on the border. There is a new reality in the Middle East, and it won't disappear if you ignore it. There is lots of evidence against Saddam, and lots of it has to do with what he says and does openly in the Arab world. To date, I have not seen any of this acknowledged by those who favor sitting around and waiting as a defense posture.