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: paul_philp who wrote (69396)	1/28/2003 2:53:35 AM
From: stockman_scott	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 281500

<<...Now is truth telling time and Bush is telling the truth and I love him for it...>> Paul: I'm glad you believe him BUT there are a lot of folks that don't. He has failed to make the case that Iraq is a clear and present danger and we have no other acceptable option but war...Where is all the evidence?...Why won't 'vigilant containment work? Many Americans also have concerns about how Bush is managing our economy...I have a number of friends who are in the investment field here in Chicago and around the country -- some are quite conservative and in the past have supported Republicans...Yet, they are becoming disillusioned...These are Hedge Fund Managers, Portfolio Managers, Folks in the Venture Capital field, Corporate Securities Lawyers, Real Estate Investors, etc...Many of these folks are concerned that The United States is on the wrong track and believe its naive to think that another large tax cut and 'a surgical strike' on Iraq will improve the situation for all Americans...They are increasingly concerned about the way the U.S. is viewed around the world and feel we may be in for more terrorist attacks and a prolonged economic downturn...Many of these folks are quite well off BUT they are selling large portions of their stocks, betting against the U.S. dollar, and investing in gold...Bush and Karl Rove should realize that a part of 'the establishment' in this country currently does not have tremendous confidence in what the Administration is doing. Bush may eventually win the war in Iraq BUT along the way he may lose the peace. It's possible we won't be anymore secure after invading Iraq...It's possible rebuilding the country / Nation building will be more expensive and more complex than we can anticipate...It's also quite possible that by going to war we may drive businesses and consumers to curtail their spending more and push this country back into recession. If this happens, Bush will not be re-elected and he will have left the American taxpayers with a huge deficit...This Administration has adopted a level of secrecy we have not seen since the Nixon years -- They claim they want U.S. companies to be honest and accountable to all stakeholders...This is the same Administration that has selected a former Enron Exec. to be our Army Secretary...They also have failed to reveal what Cheney discussed to develop energy policy...Its important for our Administration AND our corporate leaders to be open, honest and transparent. That's the only way the public will start to trust again. Lets see what Bush has to say on Tuesday night...Then, lets see how he leads in his final 2 years. regards, -s2@weallhaveanopinion.com Take a careful look at this editorial from one of the leading papers in Canada... Message 18499817 Finally, here's another take on the Bush Administration and the way they may be operating... Message 18486956

To: paul_philp who wrote (69396)	1/28/2003 3:07:32 AM
From: KLP	Respond to of 281500

Bob Woodward, WPO...U.S. to Make Iraq Intelligence Public Evidence of Weapons Concealment to Be Shared in Effort to Boost Support for War washingtonpost.com U.N. weapons inspection chief Hans Blix said three questions remain unanswered in Iraq: • How much illicit weapons material might remain undeclared and intact from before the Persian Gulf War in 1991 and possible thereafter. • What, if anything was illegally procured or produced. • How the world can prevent any weapons of mass destruction from being produced or procured in the future. By Bob Woodward Washington Post Staff Writer Tuesday, January 28, 2003; Page A01 The Bush administration has assembled what it believes to be significant intelligence showing that Iraq has been actively moving and concealing banned weapons systems and related equipment from United Nations inspectors, according to informed sources. After a lengthy debate over what and how much of the intelligence to disclose, President Bush and his national security advisers have decided to declassify some of the information and make it public, perhaps as early as next week, in an effort to garner more domestic and international support for confronting Iraqi President Saddam Hussein with military force, officials said. "The United States possesses several pieces of information which come from the work of our intelligence that show Iraq maintains prohibited weapons," Secretary of State Colin L. Powell said in an interview published yesterday in an Italian newspaper. "Once we have made sure it can be done safely, I think that in the next week or soon after we can make public a good part of this material." The information was gathered by U.S. intelligence agencies from what officials characterized as an array of sources and methods. The administration believes it shows that senior Iraqi officials and military officers who report to members of Hussein's inner circle have personally directed the movement and camouflage of the weapons or have knowledge of the operations, the sources said. The concealment efforts have often taken place days or hours ahead of visits by U.N. inspection teams, which have been operating in Iraq during the past two months, according to these accounts. In many cases, the United States has what one source called "compelling" intelligence that is "unambiguous" in proving that Iraq is hiding banned weapons. Speaking to reporters yesterday, Powell said that U.N. inspectors have picked up similar indications of Iraqi concealment and that the United States supported the inspectors' claims. "The inspectors have also told us that they have evidence that Iraq has moved or hidden items at sites just prior to inspection visits. That's what the inspectors say, not what Americans say, not what American intelligence says," he said. "Well, we certainly corroborate all of that, but this is information from the inspectors." Administration officials have said for weeks that the United States has intelligence demonstrating that Iraq maintains banned weapons programs. But they have said they could not disclose the information because doing so would jeopardize U.S. intelligence-collection methods or military operations against possible weapon storage sites in the event of war. The administration's decision to release even partial accounts of what it believes it has learned would clearly be designed to bolster the U.S. case in the U.N. Security Council, where leading members oppose an early decision to go to war, and among many Americans, who recent polls suggest are not convinced of the need for an immediate military confrontation. Democrats on Capitol Hill recently have increased calls on the administration to make public what it knows. Despite the building pressure on the United States to support its claims about Iraqi behavior, sources said that U.S. intelligence agencies have not traced or located a large cache of prohibited weapons or ingredients used in the making of chemical or biological weapons. They said the U.S. government still lacks a "smoking gun" -- the kind of definitive evidence that would prove that Iraq still has chemical or biological weapons, or a nuclear weapons development program. On top of that, what little intelligence the administration has released about Iraq has been challenged by U.N. officials and some Security Council members. In particular, these critics cite Bush's allegation, made to the U.N. General Assembly in September, that Iraq had tried to buy thousands of high-strength aluminum tubes to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons. After investigating the claim, U.N. inspectors concluded the tubes likely were never meant for enriching uranium but rather were intended as components for ordinary artillery rockets -- a finding consistent with Iraqi explanations. A senior State Department official said the information the administration plans to release will show what the Iraqis are "doing, what they're not doing, how they're deceiving." "We will lay out the case that we can, and we will leave it to others to judge," the official said. "When you listen to it, it should be disturbing to those people who listen objectively. To those who have made up their minds and want to duck their heads in the sand, it will pass right over them." Spokesmen for the White House and U.S. intelligence agencies declined to comment. In one recent example of what officials described as Iraqi obstruction, a ranking Iraqi official issued a warning that U.N. inspectors were planning a visit and directed those at the site to conceal specific prohibited weapons. In another, an Iraqi official directed scientists and others involved in research or production of chemical and biological weapons to conceal their files and papers from the inspectors. In other cases, the sources said, the intelligence is more circumstantial. These would include photographs of intense activity around a building believed to be involved in the manufacture or storage of prohibited weapons. Stephen J. Hadley, Bush's deputy national security adviser, heads a small task force that is trying to sort through the intelligence and recommend what to declassify. But officials said the process is complicated because revealing the exact intelligence could compromise sources and methods of intelligence gathering that would be needed in the confrontation with Iraq, particularly if it leads to war. Contingency planning for a possible war with Iraq anticipates weeks of bombing and a ground invasion force of more than 100,000. The beginning of such a military operation would be precisely when timely intelligence would be most valuable to the U.S. military. As a result, U.S. intelligence agencies have been reluctant to jeopardize their sources and methods of collecting information in Iraq. Staff writer Peter Slevin and researcher Mark Malseed contributed to this report. © 2003 The Washington Post Company

To: paul_philp who wrote (69396)	1/28/2003 10:51:04 AM
From: Wharf Rat	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 281500

You want to fight so badly, come down here, enlist, and fight to your heart's content, but not in my name, and not with my tax dollars. Rat

To: paul_philp who wrote (69396)	1/28/2003 11:58:44 AM
From: JohnM	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Because I have seen the results of the mealy-mouthed, . . . Classic response to a post like this one is something like, take a deep breath, and then tell us how you really feel.