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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tejek who wrote (170178)	5/30/2003 1:16:50 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1582297

There are two questions. 1 - Did Bush and/or administration officials lie. 2 - Did the article and the quote in it say that they lied. Tench was dealing with number 2. The article did not say that they lied, the quote didn't even suggest it. Your responding about question 1. Which IMO is an open question not one resolved the way you think it is, but even if you are right about it that doesn't answer the point that Tench was making. The quote was posted as proof that there was a lie, and it is no such thing. Tim

To: tejek who wrote (170178)	5/30/2003 2:27:51 PM
From: Alighieri	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1582297

US Intel 'Simply Wrong' on Chemical Attack-General 1 hour, 8 minutes ago Add Top Stories - Reuters to My Yahoo! By Charles Aldinger WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. intelligence was "simply wrong" in leading military commanders to believe their troops were likely to be attacked with chemical weapons in the Iraq (news - web sites) war, the top U.S. Marine general there said on Friday. But Lt. Gen. James Conway said in a teleconference with reporters at the Pentagon (news - web sites) that it was too early to say whether the United States also was wrong in charging that Iraq had chemical and biological arms when the invasion began 2-1/2 months ago. "We were simply wrong," he said of the assessment that chemical shells or other weapons were ready in southern Iraq and likely to be used against invaders by deposed Iraqi President Saddam Hussein (news - web sites)'s forces. "Whether or not we are wrong at the national level I think still very much remains to be seen. ... 'Intelligence failure,' I think, is still too strong a word to use at this point," added the commander of the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force who was speaking from Hilla, 62 miles south of Baghdad. U.S. forces have been scouring Iraq -- thus far unsuccessfully -- for chemical and biological weapons. The United States cited the need to rid Iraq of such weapons of mass destruction as a key reason for the war. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and other Bush administration officials have expressed confidence that such arms will be found, although Rumsfeld this week conceded that Iraq may have decided to destroy them ahead of the invasion. Conway said he was convinced when U.S. and British troops swept into Iraq from Kuwait that they would come under chemical or biological attack before they reached Baghdad. But such shells have not been found even in ammunition storage sites, he told reporters. "It was a surprise to me then. It remains a surprise to me now that we have not uncovered weapons ... in some of the forward dispersal sites," said Conway. "Believe me, it's not for lack of trying. We've been through virtually every ammunition supply site between the Kuwaiti border and Baghdad. But they're simply not there." U.S. and British troops carried chemical masks and protective outfits into Iraq during the invasion and donned them frequently early in the war in anticipation of possible attack. "What the regime was intending to do ... in terms of its use of weapons we thought we understood," the general said. "We certainly had our best guess -- our most dangerous, our most likely courses of action -- that the intelligence folks were giving us."