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 (171916)	7/15/2003 6:49:59 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1579112

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 That itself is a violation of the cease fire and something that Saddam was trying to hide. First, the nuclear program was dismantled by the weapons inspectors back in the 90s and it is still unclear what those components they found in someone's back yard are. Secondly, I find it a bit bizarre that Saddam dismantled a nuclear devise and had pieces of it buried throughout Bagdad in people's gardens. I'm afraid that explanation stretches my credibility. He doesn't point out that the CIA disapproved a similar statement in his Oct. speech in Cincinnati. The original disapproved statement was apparently based on CIA information, the later statement on British information. There is considerable confusion over this issue and some at M16 are claiming that they had separate info on uranium purchases first from France and then Italy, and now France and Italy. Understand, M16 currently is under the same level of scrutiny as our own CIA and there is considerable hemming and hawing going on within that organization as well. In other words, everything is about as clear as mud and changes from day to day. Its this general confusion which leads many people to think all this moving around is just more prevarication. 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. Do you have specific evidence that Powell though the supporting evidence was flimsy? Yes, he has been quoted to that effect in a couple of articles I have read and probably posted to this thread. 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. The British information was not specifically about Niger but about attempts to gain uranium from Africa. Yes, I understand that but the Brits have not been very forthcoming on this subject. Furthermore, they have stated that the nation providing the info to them does not wish to be known, and like I said earlier, hinting first that it was France and then Italy, and now both countries. The whole thing is like a three ring circus and has Parliament in an uproar. Wilson spent a few days in Niger and so supposedly knows that Saddam didn't try to get uranium from anywhere in Africa?? I listened to Wilson......he does not sound stupid to me nor a fool, and I don't think he is lying. ted