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: Alomex who wrote (157660)	6/4/2003 3:17:22 PM
From: GST	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 164684

In a way, the WH did not lie -- or more specifically, they warned us that they would probably lie if needed to achieve their policy goal. They told us well in advance that they had shifted their policy to "regime change" -- unilateral preemptive war, and did not need anything to justify why an invasion was needed or legitimate -- the decision to invade had already been taken a year ago as a matter of policy. The invasion of Iraq was not about WMD, the UN and certainly not about any real threat -- it was a matter of policy. All the posturing and all the discussion surrounding Iraq was for show. The policy decision had been taken. Cheney took this message to our "allies" over a year ago and they were horrified by what they heard and decided that this policy must not be supported by the international community -- this messed-up the show that the US planned to put on to show widespread support for regime change as a policy - and not the regime change policy of Clinton (the Clinton policy was to support internal Iraqi opposition but specfically said the US would NOT invade Iraq). The White House was greatly angered by the lack of willingness by "allies" to write a blank check for regime change. The arrogance of the White House was astonishing and out allies said so publicly -- further angering the more strident ideologues in the Administration. Putin flatly stated that Russia did not believe there were WMD's in Iraq. France conducted the most exhaustive and authoritative report on Iraq and came to the same conclusion as Russia -- no WMDs in Iraq. Congress went along, but more out of political expedience and is now saying they were lied to -- but they really turned the keys to the war decision to Bush and abdicated their role. The American people had every reason that we would be lied to if needed to sell regime change -- and we were indeed lied to. We only have ourselves to blame for not being better informed and outraged from the start -- just as our allies were informed and outraged. People like Bob don't want the truth to be known -- and his favorite ploy is to make it sound all so "pathtetic" and complicated. Only a handful of "hateful" people are unhappy about the outcome, and people like that are "confused" and have no "logic" or "facts". Bob's game is 100% pure political spin. The British public tend to be more news oriented -- and I don't mean CNN soundbites. If they have been lied to they will be truly outraged, and this will have consequences. The British democratic instinct is likely to prove more deep-seated than we will see in America -- although American outrage over the blatant propaganda campaign waged by Rumsfeld and Cheney could really annoy people who actually value democracy and don't won't to see us lose those things most precious to us -- our democratic system of government based on our love of truth and personal integrity. We had a crisis in corporate governance -- now we have a crisis in public governance -- lets hope we can be successful at defending our system against fraud and corruption from inside.

To: Alomex who wrote (157660)	6/4/2003 3:58:13 PM
From: Oeconomicus	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 164684

I think you should be too, unless you like being lied to. Unlike you, I have not drawn any conclusions about whether or not I was lied to. IF I was, I'm disappointed, but since I never thought that was the only reason for removing Saddam and since the answer to that question doesn't change whether removing him was a good idea, I'm not obsessing over it like you are.