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: Nadine Carroll who wrote (109479)	8/3/2003 1:42:34 AM
From: D. Long	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

But the Administration did not make the argument that Iraq posed an immediate threat. The argument was that we could not wait for such a threat to emerge from Iraq. Nobody argued that Saddam was handing over weapons to suicide bombers, and we had to act immediately. Bush argued that Saddam had the weapons, and had dealings with terrorists, and the ambiguity of that nexus was intolerable after September 11. Derek

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (109479)	8/3/2003 2:28:57 AM
From: KonKilo	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

The Bush administration did push WMDs/aid to terrorists, not wanting to give "slum clearance" as the real reason, for reasons that are pretty obvious to anyone who thinks about it. Now that lack of WMDs has proved an embarresment, it suits liberals to pretend that the reasons that were pushed were the only reasons, and that if they didn't pan out, there could have been no reasons at all. Some actually believe this, for others it's just a partisan stance. Quite a fine piece of circular logic you have here, Nadine. Let me see if I have this straight: The Bushies couldn't tell us the real reason, so they gave us false reasons instead. Some of the false reasons have been proven false, so they are now truly false but other false reasons must still be true since they've not yet been proven false. It must be mentally exhausting to be a Neocon apologist.