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.

Technology Stocks : Amazon.com, Inc. (AMZN) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: stockman_scott who wrote (157599)	6/3/2003 4:47:59 PM
From: Oeconomicus	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 164684

Only in America... ... do you find a government so eager to investigate itself. This is a good thing in the long run. Unfortunately, many in the press (and their followers) prefer to jump ahead, skipping the evidence, right to the conclusions before anything is investigated. Furthermore, they want to take the calls for investigation of WMD intelligence as proof that the policy objective of removing Saddam was wrong from the beginning, in spite of the fact that WMD was only one of several reasons for removing Saddam, and as vindication of their general opposition to Bush that has nothing to do with whether or not Saddam had WMDs. Besides, very little time has passed since we could even begin to search Iraq - opponents of war wanted to give UN inspections at least six months, if not years more. Also, WMD stockpiles and programs to produce them are two separate things, and stockpiles can be fairly easily moved. Lastly, as I noted before, UN inspectors, the security council itself as evidenced by 1441, leadership of both major parties in the US, and leaders of much of the world were all convinced that Saddam DID have WMDs. The issue was not whether he had them, but instead whether that made him an immediate threat to us, justifying war. The Bush administration said that threat AND the other good reasons for removing him made doing so the best policy. Blair in England agreed, as did much of the rest of Europe's leaders and many informed observers (like the NY Times' Tom Friedman, who is hardly a Bushie). Others, like some US congressional democrats, said "we aren't sure about the other justifications (like relieving the Iraqi people of a murderous tyrant or establishing an example of liberal government in the Arab world as a long-term strategic benefit to the US), but we'll hang our hats on the WMD thing and possible terrorist connections." No one, except perhaps the French, said it was ALL about WMD and they didn't really even care about that because to them it was really about opposing the US and protecting their friend, Saddam. So, investigate away and get back to me in six months or so.