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: NickSE who wrote (99680)	5/31/2003 3:58:06 PM
From: JohnM	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Ah, so now The Weekly Standard says we should believe Wolfowitz' version. Not that's a genuinely objective source. I have no serious idea who is right or wrong here. And, frankly, could care less. Tempest in a teapot. And all that. But this kneejerk response in which the DOD is to be trusted and all reporters not trusted is well over the top. And clearly part of a campaign.

To: NickSE who wrote (99680)	5/31/2003 4:25:34 PM
From: Noel de Leon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

"http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/00..." And the US government treats its citizens, the UN, its allies, and the world as if they are too stupid to understand more than two reasons to go to war, WMDs(which have not been found even though there are 4 times as many searchers as there were when Hans Blix was being chastised by the US), and Al-Qaeda(for which a connection to Saddam is weak at best). So it's pretty easy to conclude that the real reason for the war is that the Saudis wanted the US out of Saudi Arabia because of the Al-Qaeda problem(which is real for SA).