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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (171909)	7/15/2003 5:46:20 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1579004

I think around the 7th they said that Bush should not have used the uranium allegation. NR didn't say that it was a good idea to use that allegation or that the allegation was correct. NR pointed out inaccuracies and exaggerations in those who where attacking Bush over the uranium allegations. Since they are blasting Bush for making inaccurate and/or exaggerated statements you would think they would want to be sticklers for accuracy in their own statements. That's not the central issue of the article. Read it again. The argument NR author is trying to make it seem that everyone is making much to do about nothing. After all, according to the author, we know that Saddam had a nuclear WMD program in the ninties and we have found a few components that could be used in a nuclear devise......so what's the big deal. So what if Mr. Bush "slightly" misrepresented the situation. No big deal.....Saddam was still a problem. He doesn't bother to point out that the comment in Mr. Bush's State of the Union was a major surprise, and shocked the nation into getting behind Mr. Bush's war plans. He doesn't point out that the CIA disapproved a similar statement in his Oct. speech in Cincinnati. He also doesn't point out that Powell a few days later did not bother to use the info in his UN presentation because he felt the evidence supporting it was too flimsy. In addition, the NR author makes it seem like Cheney was very earnest in trying to verify the veracity of the Niger transaction when, in fact, he pretty much ignored Mr. Wilson's conclusion. And then the NR author makes a rather vapid attempt at discrediting Mr. Wilson and in turn, his position re. the Niger transaction when its not just Mr. Wilson who is saying the documents are forgeries. Plus, he seems to forget that Mr. Cheney approved the use of Mr. Wilson's talents. This attempt to discredit Mr. Wilson and to diminish the importance of Mr. Bush's comment in his State of the Union makes the NR author's position extraordinarily transparent. Frankly, its why the NR doesn't win Pulitzers on any regular kind of basis if at all. ted