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: Oeconomicus who wrote (157667)	6/4/2003 5:21:36 PM
From: GST	Respond to of 164684

<<End the deception By Robert Jensen and Rahul Majahan Americans face an important question in the aftermath of the Iraq invasion: Does it matter that our government fudged facts to justify war? Should politicians face consequences when they mislead us, especially about the need for military force? While British Prime Minister Tony Blair is facing increasing pressure because of his role in this debacle, the Bush administration is betting the American public will tire of the debate. Officials apparently think that if they constantly repeat the mantra -- ''We know for certain Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction'' -- and the news media faithfully relay that message, they will get away with their deception. The problem isn't simply that no evidence of banned weapons programs has been found, but a broader pattern of deception: * Allegations before the war that Iraq had tried to purchase uranium from Niger were based on crude forgeries that officials had been warned about, while claims about biological and chemical stockpiles were based on dubious methods and unsupported by the arms-control community. * Secretary of State Colin Powell expressed concerns in private to his British counterpart, Jack Straw, that the claims might explode in their faces because they weren't backed by hard evidence. * Professionals in the intelligence community are livid about how the administration politicized the analysis of information. Most telling, Iraq didn't use weapons of mass destruction (WMD). At worst, Iraq is accused of surreptitiously destroying weapons on the eve of war -- not exactly the stuff of which threats to the free world are made, but a convenient rationalization for the lack of evidence. Meanwhile, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz is backpedaling from comments made last month that the administration settled on the WMD rationale out of bureaucratic convenience because it was ''the one issue that everyone could agree on.'' That remark, made without spin doctors present, shows the administration's cavalier attitude toward informed consent by the public. At every stage, the administration picked the most convenient rationale for war. First was the connection between Saddam and al-Qaeda; when that didn't pan out, it was the threat posed by Iraq's WMD. When they didn't turn up, it was liberating the Iraqi people. While the public was distracted by this procession of justifications alternately taken up and conveniently abandoned, the real reasons never saw the light of day. Would Americans have supported a war for increased control of the Middle East and an American empire based on military domination? Bush administration officials who wanted war knew better than to ask. Professor Robert Jensen of the University of Texas wrote Writing Dissent: Taking Radical Ideas from the Margins to the Mainstream. Rahul Mahajan wrote Full Spectrum Dominance: U.S. Power in Iraq and Beyond. U.S. picks justification for war that best appeases the public. usatoday.com

To: Oeconomicus who wrote (157667)	6/4/2003 5:24:26 PM
From: GST	Respond to of 164684

<<MPs sink Blair bid to buy off Gulf war critics ALISON HARDIE POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT A LABOUR dominated committee of MPs last night humiliated Tony Blair by announcing it would stage an independent inquiry into why Britain went to war with Iraq. The influential foreign affairs select committee warned it may call the Prime Minister to give evidence in public as it investigates the controversy surrounding claims he doctored evidence to prove an urgent threat from weapons of mass destruction (WMD). The inquiry will also demand answers from members of MI5 and MI6, Britain’s elite intelligence agencies - and "name and shame" them if they refuse to appear - as it digs into claims Mr Blair exaggerated the danger of Iraq’s WMD. As Downing Street found itself yet again on the ropes over Iraq, it sanctioned an extraordinary attack on the intelligence services. John Reid, the Commons leader, said that "rogue elements" had briefed against Mr Blair. While Hilary Armstrong, the chief whip, was said to have told colleagues the government was the victim of "skullduggery" within the intelligence services. The new Commons committee inquiry will undermine a carefully planned strategy to buy off Mr Blair’s critics in the Labour Party which was due to be executed today. He was expected to tell MPs a parliamentary watchdog will investigate the allegations that he doctored intelligence. Mr Blair had hoped that the offer of an inquiry by the Intelligence Service Committee (ISC) would act as a concession to his critics and silence the growing demands for a full-scale public inquiry into claims he "sexed up" intelligence to "dupe" MPs. However, it was clear he had been wildly optimistic, as the ISC inquiry was immediately dismissed as a "whitewash" and an "inside job". The ISC is made up of senior MPs, but they meet behind closed doors and its reports go straight to the Prime Minister to be vetted. Its inquiry is also unlikely to pacify Labour rebels as the committee is chaired by Ann Taylor, a former government chief whip and an acolyte of Mr Blair. Donald Anderson, the Labour chairman of the foreign affairs select committee, told The Scotsman last night he believed any conclusions issued by the ISC would lack credibility. "The committee is appointed by the government - in effect, it is the government investigating itself," he said. "Some critics [of Mr Blair] will never be satisfied, but for those who are reasonable and open, I would hope that the track record of my committee shows that we are ready to be critical where necessary," he added. Mr Anderson said the committee’s findings would include a list of those who declined to give evidence, including the intelligence services. The latest twist in the Iraq saga confirmed that Mr Blair today faces an extremely uncomfortable session in the House of Commons. During two set-piece encounters, both sure to be highly-charged, he must face down questions from Iain Duncan Smith, the Tory leader, and explain to angry Labour back-benchers why he has rejected their demands for an independent investigation. The latest call came from John Denham, who resigned from the government in protest on the eve of the Iraqi conflict. Echoing remarks made by former Cabinet ministers Robin Cook and Clare Short, Mr Denham said an independent investigation was vital to restore public confidence. He said it should take in every aspect of the run-up to war including information supplied by the British intelligence agencies. But Mr Blair’s official spokesman batted off the calls for an independent inquiry. He said: "We don’t see the need for one. It’s as simple as that." thescotsman.co.uk

To: Oeconomicus who wrote (157667)	6/4/2003 6:16:36 PM
From: GST	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 164684

<<I'm not obsessing over it like you are.>> Sure Bob -- why worry about a White House Administration that declares war and invades countries by telling lies to get us to go along with it. After all, we are here to serve our Government -- not the other way around, right? And if the sons and daughters of your friends and neighbors have to die -- so be it. When the White House says "trust us, we know the truth", we don't need to know the truth -- the White House should be free to lie to the American people any time it likes. Bush should be able to lie whenever it suits him. Same for our non-elected public "servants". Anyway, it was fun to invade Iraq and it made for good television, not to mention good results for Bush in the polls -- it all sounds worth it to me. It is clear that we are loved for our unwavering respect for democratic principles (not to mention our weapons-targeting capability) and respected around the world for the quality of our leaders! Long live George Bush and big Dick! Pass the lemonade.