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: Rascal who wrote (104296)	7/8/2003 4:51:40 PM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 281500

I do not believe that the president deliberately misled the country. The fact that the report was bogus does not mean that there was an effort to commit fraud. The remarks of the CIA operative do not clarify responsibility, or even make much clarification of time- line. Rockefeller's remark is wholly inappropriate, and certainly not evidentiary. MacAuliffe carries political hackdom to a new level. It is certainly true that the case did not depend on this one report alone, and that the moral case for overthrowing Saddam Hussein is solid. I am sure there will be further inquiries, and we shall see what comes of them......

To: Rascal who wrote (104296)	7/9/2003 12:33:23 AM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

I'm confused - I thought the Nigerian story was that Iraqi agents did try to buy some uranium, but got conned and got nothing instead. What is it now? And sure, Rascal, any reasonable person can trust Terry McAuliffe to judge between the Bush administration's mistakes and their deliberate deceptions. I mean, he certainly wouldn't let any mere political motivations get in the way of impartiality, would he? -g-

To: Rascal who wrote (104296)	7/9/2003 5:53:29 AM
From: Sig	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

<<July 8 (Bloomberg) -- President George W. Bush was wrong in his State of the Union Address when he said that Iraq tried to ``buy significant quantities of uranium from Africa,'' a spokesman said. >>> Considering that Saddam had on-hand tons of the stuff . where did he get it? I will assume from a different country . How do we know it was not Africa.? The odds are very great that Iraq did send agents or inquiries to Africa seeking uranium. Prove that Iraq did not do that, and you may be able to prove Bush made a mistake or was lying. The key thing is that Iraq was trying to buy Uranium. What the heck difference does it make if it was from Africa or anywhere else? To prove that Bush was lying you will have to prove that Saddam was not tying to buy uranium from anywhere, despite the fact he had already done so. Very difficult to do, impossible in fact. Even if you catch Saddam and ask him, he may lie about it. It may have been a mistake to say say Africa. Can you make a bigger or better bomb from African uranium , as compared to Russian uranium? Sig