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: tekboy who wrote (76399)	2/21/2003 6:11:17 PM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

So I think it's not impossible that a crucial mental step toward this new war was taken on completely fraudulent grounds, and then retrospectively justified by heroic assumptions about unlikely contingencies. If I had to bet right now, I would bet that Saddam had nothing to do with 911. We will know in a few weeks when we start reading the files in Baghdad. However, he has certainly trained, equipped, and financed a lot of Terrorists of various stripes, many of whom are part of the Al Qaeda network. I don't think there has ever been a time in History when the masses like us have been able to know so much of what has been going on. Despite Bush's "shutdown" of info, the overall plans are out there. And a good picture of the infighting is available. We look back on major Historical events and see a smooth flow. But the reality was always the kind of ups and downs we are seeing. However this comes out, I am glad, in spite of the warts, that we had this team going in. "Moral Clarity" pisses off you "Realist" types. :>)

To: tekboy who wrote (76399)	2/21/2003 6:29:10 PM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Kristol, Woolsey, and the rest of that camp argued very, very strongly from 9/11 on that Iraq was involved in the attacks and/or the anthrax mailings. I certainly recall Woolsey doing so extremely vigorously, and perhaps doing so as early as 9/11. He seemed knowledgeable, articulate, informed, etc. I recall thinking then that he was the cat's pajamas. So I think it's not impossible that a crucial mental step toward this new war was taken on completely fraudulent grounds, and then retrospectively justified by heroic assumptions about unlikely contingencies. Thus, you no longer hear that Saddam helped perpetrate 9/11, but rather that he might help perpetrate the next one. Big difference, and if the latter point. I must be missing something, but I don't think that Bush has ever explicitly said there was a linkage. If there were a credible linkage, I should think it would have been trumpeted to high heaven, and we would not be in the current hand-wringing mode. Even a 40-60% contingency that Saddam will acquire a nuke or two in the next two or so years, in my view, is sufficiently dangerous such that we would be insane not to disarm him, the lack of an UN resolution notwithsanding. But how does one confidently quantify such a possibility? Beats me, though we do know containment has not worked and we can't expect it to work for the next two years. Sanctions and inspections are a joke and he could buy one or two loose ones, rendering his effort to make them irrelevant. C2@youmakeaneducatedguessusinghighlyrefinedjudgmentlikemine.com