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: KonKilo who wrote (109967)	8/4/2003 6:30:26 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

How about the non-existant Saddam/Al Qaeda connection? Not much to Al Qaeda specifically, but quite a bit to Islamist terrorists such as Ansar. Also, Salman Pak was not a boy's summer camp, and $$$ for suicide bombers is pretty open support. How about the non-existant Niger uranium buy? How about it? We have one forged document, and British Intelligence standing by the Africa/uranium story. How about the non-existant Iraqi nuclear program? A program buried in rose gardens was not non-existent, it was waiting for the opportune moment for a restart. If Bush did some hyping on his end, you are doing anti-hyping on yours, taking the most extreme of the Bush arguments and pretending that they were the entire argument. This is called knocking down a straw man. They slanted the truth to get their desired end. Whether or not the end proves to be worthwhile is beside the point. You are still dodging the question. Surely if the Bush administration sincerely believed the intelligence they were getting, that cannot count as deliberate deception. If a man, being deceived himself, then deceives others, he is not a liar. There's pretty clear evidence that they believed the intelligence on WMDS - hell, every intelligence service in the world believed it, why shouldn't they? As for ends and means, I don't pretend to be such a purist as you. I ask, what ends? what means? If Iraq is a prosperous place five years from now and Al Qaeda has joined Shining Path on the asheap of history, I shall fret very little of Bush's shading of truth, which I think was much less than you paint it anyway.

To: KonKilo who wrote (109967)	8/4/2003 6:43:54 PM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 281500

<<...We were mislead. Now, what do we do about it?...>> Have our Senators appoint a Special Prosecuter and if necessary hold Impeachment Hearings... writ.corporate.findlaw.com writ.corporate.findlaw.com writ.corporate.findlaw.com <<...Need for A Special Prosecutor To Investigate the WMD Claims There is an unsavory stench about Bush's claims to the Congress, and nation, about Saddam Hussein's WMD threat. The deceptions are too apparent. There are simply too many unanswered questions, which have been growing daily. If the Independent Counsel law were still in existence, this situation would justify the appointment of an Independent Counsel. Because that law has expired, if President Bush truly has nothing to hide, he should appoint a special prosecutor. After all, Presidents Nixon and Clinton, when not subject to the Independent Counsel law, appointed special prosecutors to investigate matters much less serious. If President Bush is truly the square shooter he portrays himself to be, he should appoint a special prosecutor to undertake an investigation. Ideally, the investigation ought to be concluded - and the issue cleared up - well before the 2004 election, so voters know the character of the men (and women) they may or may not be re-electing. Family, loved ones, and friends of those who have died, and continue to die, in Iraq deserve no less...>>