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: Jacob Snyder who wrote (100700)	6/8/2003 1:53:52 PM
From: Bilow	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Hi Jacob Snyder; My guess is that the spooks were more than just "wary" about the administration claims to have proof of WMDs in Iraq. (i.e. "What has emerged in the past week is how deeply their interpretation was at odds with that of America's intelligence professionals." ) I'll bet that there are intelligence white papers suggesting that Hussein truly did destroy his WMDs. It will be some time before these reports are released to the public, but I am sure that they're out there, just like there were reports warning that the Islamic terror groups were planning to fly a plane into a building. They may take 6 or 12 months to come out, but as the war turns into a bigger and deeper fiasco, and sentiment turns against the Bush steamroller, the evidence will get leaked to the press. Any fool could see that it was to Saddam Hussein's infinite advantage to eliminate WMDs and submit to UN search. I posted as such on this thread, way back when the local riff-raff were saying that Hussein would never let inspectors back in. Of course, I was brought up as a right wing "Duty Honor Country" man, and it was beyond my comprehension that Bush could start a war in the face of full and complete (though admittedly late) Iraqi compliance. *It's like yelling for the criminal to "come out with your hands up, and you won't be harmed", and then blowing the unarmed man away while screaming a lie: "He's got a gun!!!".* Bush and Blair are not men with a sense of honor. At best, they're anile. At worst they belong to be treated like Lt. Calley, who at least had the excuse of being directly under fire. I expect this sort of dishonor out of a left-wing Brit, but to see it out of a Republican president saddens and shocks me horribly. What happened to my party? -- Carl