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 Policy Discussion Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: ChinuSFO who wrote (5631)	7/11/2003 12:35:29 AM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 15991

This President like the earlier one is a liar. The difference is that this President's lies costs American lives while the earlier President's lies not only did not cost American lives but it also did not cause any American lives. Something to think about. The earlier President's lies cost him the ability to take custody of Osama bin Laden when Sudan offered him up. That cost at least 3,000 American lives.

To: ChinuSFO who wrote (5631)	7/11/2003 1:41:45 AM
From: KLP	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 15991

Bush dismisses criticism of false Iraq intelligence Note: ALL 3 departments --CIA, Pentagon, and State Department had access to the speech for several days ahead of delivery........AND NONE changed the wording..... By Dana Milbank and Mike Allen The Washington Post seattletimes.nwsource.com >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>But White House officials said the uranium claim was included in the president's Jan. 28 address only after the wording had been approved by the CIA, Pentagon and State Department. In his remarks, Bush declared: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." Dan Bartlett, the White House communications director, said the passage was included in drafts of the speech for at least 10 days before Bush delivered it. Bartlett said he knew of no objections to including the charge, or debate over the wording. "We wouldn't lead with something that we thought could be refuted," Bartlett said. "There was no debate or questions with regard to that line when it was signed off on. This was not a last-minute addition." Bartlett said the sentence was included as part of a desire to build a five-point case against Saddam — that he possessed, or was seeking, biological, chemical and nuclear weapons, had a history of human-rights violations and had links to terrorism. <<<<<<<<<<<<