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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: calgal who wrote (425751)	7/11/2003 3:15:13 PM
From: Lazarus_Long	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769670

<font color=red>THE LIBS ARE LYING AGAIN!!!!!</font> Excellent find, Westi! Her's the exact statement: The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Here's the source: cnn.com

To: calgal who wrote (425751)	7/11/2003 3:50:41 PM
From: Cogito	Respond to of 769670

>>I suppose you can make the case that a British-government claim should not have made its way into the president's SOTU without further verification. But why is that the top of the TV news day after day? Why would even the most dyspeptic Bush-basher see in those 16 accurate words of President's Bush's 5,492-word SOTU an opportunity to persuade Americans that there's a scandal in the White House, another Watergate, grounds for impeachment?" Westi - First, it's not "16 accurate words". (I suppose you meant "innacurate".) It's a complete misrepresentation of the truth. The problem is that the original report about Hussein seeking the uranium was discredited at least several weeks before the State of the Union speech was made. The information that the original report was a fabrication was available to the Bush Administration well before the SOTU was complete. I, for one, find it very disturbing that our President may have intentionally exaggerated the threat Saddam posed, or even fabricated it completely, in order to justify military action. That would be a very serious offense by any reasonable standard. Bush also said this: "The United Nations concluded in 1999 that Saddam Hussein had biological weapons materials sufficient to produce over 25,000 liters of anthrax; enough doses to kill several million people. He hasn't accounted for that material. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed it. The United Nations concluded that Saddam Hussein had materials sufficient to produce more than 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin; enough to subject millions of people to death by respiratory failure. He hasn't accounted for that material. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed it. Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent. In such quantities, these chemical agents could also kill untold thousands. He's not accounted for these materials. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them. U.S. intelligence indicates that Saddam Hussein had upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents. Inspectors recently turned up 16 of them, despite Iraq's recent declaration denying their existence. Saddam Hussein has not accounted for the remaining 29,984 of these prohibited munitions. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them." Where are these hundreds of tons of materials? Where are the 29,984 prohibited munitions? It is becoming more and more clear that Saddam Hussein did not really pose a threat to the U.S. He couldn't even mount a credible defense of his own capital. So now, hundreds of American soldiers, a few reporters, and thousands of Iraqis are dead, and it's possible that Bush wasn't being honest about why he made the decision that led to those deaths. Does that seem unimportant to you? - Allen