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: Dayuhan who wrote (100778)	6/8/2003 10:34:05 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

It’s strange how so many people who trumpeted the WMD issue to the skies before the war are now backing away from it. Just as so many people who argued that we couldn't attack Saddam because then he would use chemical weapons on our troops have completely forgotten their arguments. I recall a few posts claiming that anything short of immediate war would effectively cede control of the gulf to Saddam. The argument was that containment was breaking down, and either we toppled Saddam now, or waited a few more years until he had acquired nukes, or ceded him control of the gulf. That was essentially Pollack's argument. I'll admit the "WMD now!" angle was overplayed; some arguments usually get overplayed in any political controversy. The argument, 'we can have the war now, or wait a few years, risk a few more 9/11's, and hope Saddam doesn't get nukes between now and then' may have been nearer the heart of the matter but was a much harder sell. The argument 'we have to try some kind of housecleaning of these failed regimes in the Arab world before we get a nuclear 9/11' might have been harder still; they chose not to make it. Just as the "where are the WMDs?" argument is now getting overplayed into "Bush lied!" instead of the more reasoned question, does our intelligence stink? was it politicized? Intelligence operatives don’t cover their butts with public statements. They aren’t accountable to the public, they are accountable to the administration; they risk far more than they could ever gain by this kind of open statement. Whoa, where do you get that idea? Haven't you noticed that the intelligence orgs are run by politicians, who are extremely accountable to Congress, who funds them, which means to public opinion? They can and do cover their butts with the best of them.