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 (61151)	12/11/2002 7:18:53 PM
From: epsteinbd	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Your point 2: Kennedy went public with his evidence on the last hour, (France de Gaule and UK PM had seen the shots before); and here, Bush may be playing on his own schedule. Point 3: Kuwait, Qattar, Jordan and even Iran do not oppose deposition on SH. Point 4: the main Euro countries France and Germany will lose much business if/when the US wins. Russia had already secured 40+ billion $ of contracts a few months ago.

To: Noel de Leon who wrote (61151)	12/11/2002 7:19:30 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Noel, the idea that Saddam really has destroyed his WMDs since 1998 is risible. The leopard does not change his spots and lie down with the lamb. Saddam's entire behavior since 1991 tells us that he regards WMDs as being necessary to his continued survival. No serious observer of Iraq suggests that Saddam hasn't got weapons. They just speculate on how well Saddam has managed to hide his weapons. As for why Bush hasn't spilled the evidence yet, patience. Once he agreed to go along with UN keystone kops, excuse me, UNMOVIC inspectors, things take more time. He has to study what Saddam said in the report and compare it to what Saddam said previously, and to what his intelligence reports, before he can decide to what evidence to spill. Even if Bush has a bunch of smoking guns, they will be much more effective evidence if Saddam has completely denied having the guns, than if he has some plausible explanation of why a bunch of gun parts were at that location. Bush also may need to consider the costs of his evidence; he might be responsible for killing some agents in Iraq by disclosing their work. There is no reason whatsoever for him to have leaked anything before now (esp. to Hans Blix & co), because he would only have tipped his hand to the Iraqis. If on the other hand, President Bush doesn't come up with any evidence in the next couple of months, then you can say the evidence doesn't exist.