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 : DON'T START THE WAR -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: PartyTime who wrote (7698)	2/12/2003 9:43:31 PM
From: Brumar89	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 25898

I think everyone, including the authors, know what Powell was trying to prove: a) That Saddam was being deceptive and hiding weapons of mass destruction; b) that there was a Saddam link to Al Qaeda. Powell proved neither. Re. a - you've said yourself you believe Saddam has chemical weapons. Let's face facts. We all know that a is true. If we didn't all already believe it, the tapes of Iraqi officers talking about nerve agents and cleaning up before inspectors show up would be good evidence. Re. b - he tied terrorists to Iraq - Zarqawi who received medical treatment in Baghdad - given that Iraq was a police state this couldn't have happened unknown to authorities. There is also the testimony of terrorist detainees and defectors on the subject. Fact of the matter is what Powell presented as his information to the Security Council included plagerized documents that were out of date, and I believe Powell was heard to describe the material as up to date intelligence. And the materials he used from the British dossier were embellished by Blair's press secretary. None of the evidence Powell presented was based on the British report, though he did mention it in one sentence. I've read what Powell said even if none of you antiwar folks have.