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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: George Coyne who wrote (406792)	5/15/2003 9:11:49 PM
From: Jacob Snyder	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

<And how long would you like the jury to stay "out"? Two more months.> Why? The inspectors, our inspectors, have looked everywhere, and found nothing. There will be no more evidence (or, rather, lack of evidence) in two months, than there is today. When people are sure that Clinton lied, but deny that Bush lied, they are just engaging in partisan politics. They are only willing to see the faults of people whose politics they disagree with. This is what corrodes the principle of equality before the law. In order to deny that Bush lied, you've got to accept some very implausible things. You've got to believe that the Iraqis were amazingly efficient and quick, in a wartime environment, in getting rid of a massive amount of evidence. Further, you've got to believe that all the Iraqi scientists are still loyal to Saddam, even after he's gone. They are all still saying what they said before the war: there are no WMD; there haven't been any for years. It also requires forgetting what everyone said, before the war. The prowar group was certain, 110% certain, that we would find WMD after Regime Change. There was none of these excuses and evasions. < It is apparent you know nothing about statistics.> If the light bulb lasted 8000 or 12000 hours, that wouldn't be false advertising. But 1000 hours is way outside the limits of acceptable deviation from promised performance. And the Bush Administration made a series of very specific claims, and have zero evidence to back up any of it. They weren't just a little wrong. It was a Big Lie.

To: George Coyne who wrote (406792)	5/16/2003 1:26:53 AM
From: Thomas A Watson	Respond to of 769670

I like the light bulb. A bright idea. LOL...

To: George Coyne who wrote (406792)	5/19/2003 1:50:05 AM
From: Jacob Snyder	Respond to of 769670

White House Press Briefing with Ari Fleischer Wednesday, May 14, 2003 - 12:30 PM by Russell Mokhiber Mokhiber: Ari, you said on April 10th, about weapons of mass destruction, "That is what this war was about." On Sunday, The Washington Post reported that the group directing U.S. search efforts for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq is winding down operations without finding proof that Saddam Hussein kept clandestine stocks of outlawed arms. Ari Fleischer: Efforts aren't winding down, efforts are cranking up. As Dr. Rice said in an exclusive interview with Reuters, we are sending in additional teams of people and increasing the amount of inspectors, the amount of people who go through documentation, people who are more expert, to continue to go in. And nothing has changed from what I said on April. Mokhiber: If I could follow up on that. Let's -- hypothetically, these weapons are -- Ari Fleischer: You're beginning a sentence with the wrong word. (Laughter.) You just hurt your cause. Mokhiber: If The Washington Post report is correct, and weapons that Secretary Powell said are there, are not there, I'm wondering if -- what are the chances that you were misled? Ari Fleischer: No, I think that you've heard it from enough officials to know that you should not begin a sentence with a hypothetical. We remain confident in all the statements we've made about it. commondreams.org ---------------------------------------- A sample of statements they made about it: Message 18948456 -------------------------------------------- My comment: The Bush Administration is not saying the weapons were destroyed right before our soldiers moved in. Whether you define "right before" as days, weeks, or months before. They know such a position would be impossible to defend, as it isn't possible to dismantle huge industrial complexes without a trace. So they are left with saying "we're still looking", a statement that, with every passing day, looks more and more like refusing to admit the obvious. Nixon and Clinton did the same thing, when they got caught lying.