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 : Stockman Scott's Political Debate Porch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: stockman_scott who wrote (21129)	6/27/2003 5:00:03 AM
From: lurqer	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 89467

Distorted Intelligence? One intelligence source says that as the Bush Administration cranked up the government to prepare for war, intelligence agencies were ordered to produce two critical papers that could be published to justify an attack on Saddam. One paper related to Weapons of Mass destruction, the other to Saddam’s links to terrorism. Classified versions of both papers were written and the paper on WMD was eventually published by the Bush Administration as an official dossier. But an unclassified version of the paper on Saddam’s links to terrorism was never published because intelligence agencies could not reach final agreement on what exactly it should say. Leaving the obvious question. If the intelligence agencies could not agree on what to say - why was anyone not only talking, but presenting only one "extreme" version of the intelligence? I say "extreme" because it is my belief that the Bush administration presented their case for the Iraqi War by pushing the available evidence that supported their case to the limit, by distorting some evidence and by ignoring and not mentioning any evidence that didn't support their case. They treated going to war, like it was a domestic political debate – which for them it was. Remember, it’s not just Bush, it’s the whole chickenhawk neo-con pack that has zero war experience. Do you expect them to see that a plan that leaves your military exposed to guaranteed slow attrition, is a bad idea? They’ve never been shot at? Not one of them, ever. A fitting “punishment” for the neo-con cabal, would be to be transferred en masse to Baghdad. After motoring around Baghdad, and getting “picked off” like the troops are now, I expected we’d get a remarkable “change in policy”. Re. THE QATAR CONNECTION Assuming that we some day recover from the current assault on constitutional freedoms, I suspect that history will not treat the Bush Administration lightly. If an apology was given to Japanese Americans by the elder Bush scu.edu (near the bottom of the link) what will be required of some future president to try to correct the abolition of the right to council and habeas corpus of US citizens. Any US citizen can be classified as an “enemy combatant”, and they become like one of the Argentinean “Disappeared” of the 1970s. This is even “troubling” to conservatives. The following is from National Review via the Cato Institute – neither are considered to be a “liberal” organization. cato.org As usual, JMO lurqer