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: D. Long who wrote (109573)	8/3/2003 11:19:31 AM
From: JohnM	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 281500

But the Administration did not make the argument that Iraq posed an immediate threat. Derek, I know you would like to believe this but it simply is not so. Any number of posters on this thread have dug up comment after comment from Bush and his friends echoing Blair's 45 minute comment. You might wish to fall back to Tom Friedman's position in this morning's New York Times, in which he draws from the book about Blair. Blair, according to Friedman's rendition of the book, saw the problem clearly from his perspective. Saddam was a long term threat, not a short term one but British public opinion would not sanction an invasion on long term grounds. No doubt something like that worked its way through places within the Bush administration. But that should not be done in a democracy. The Bush administration has done serious damage to the credibility of US intelligence by cherrypicking from intelligence reports, by stretching the arguments far too much, and by encouraging members of the intelligence community to produce reports the Bush folk wish to hear rather than the community's best intelligence. I recommend Milt Bearden's new book about his slot in the CIA during the middle 80s to early 90s to see the problem.