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: Noel de Leon who wrote (60943)	12/10/2002 7:39:05 PM
From: Bilow	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Hi Noel de Leon; Re Occam's razor and the question of who is lying, Saddam or Bush. If it is assumed that Bush has evidence that Iraq Saddam is assumed to be lying, then a whole host of actions become inexplicable: (1) Why would Saddam do something that would assure his being deposed in a violent war? (2) Why, in contrast to JFK in the Cuba situation, hasn't Bush gone public with his evidence? (3) Why would the neighbors of Iraq be nearly unanimous in their opposition to a war? (4) Why would the opinions of the Europeans and other 1st world nations closer to Iraq than the US be so against a war? (5) Why haven't rumors, of exactly what Bush's evidence is, leaked to the press? On the other hand, if Bush is "lying" (i.e. mistaken), and Saddam is telling the truth, then the only question is how did Bush get himself painted into a corner. My explanation is that the Bush administration is badly managed, in that it is a top-down institution. The friction between Bush and the CIA and State department as well as the friction been Rumsfeld and the professional military has been well reported in the newspapers. Bad managers never have a clue what is going on. Instead, their bad management influences their employees to give them misleading reports (what they want to hear) but that further blind the management. For details, read "Dilbert": dilbert.com For details on Rumsfeld's relations with the Defense Department, see (from a PM): Complaint: He doesn't listen to the generals story.news.yahoo.com By contrast, the war party's explanation of events has gotten more and more convoluted. In addition to implying that Saddam is an idiot, that the evidence against Iraq is so secret that even its nature cannot be breathed without (well, fit your explanation here), that the neighbors of Iraq are run by idiots, that the Europeans are idiots, that the press is unable to obtain information on the evidence from an administration that constantly leaks war plans and everything else, they're also now accusing the United Nations of working for Saddam, LOL: Mr. Blix has clearly been instructed by his masters to cover for Saddam. #reply-18311313 The tales told by the war party have gone far beyond what is believable. -- Carl