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 (109987)	8/4/2003 9:38:05 PM
From: KonKilo	Respond to of 281500

Not much to Al Qaeda specifically... You asked me if a saw a pattern of deceit. I did. Do you suppose it was by accident that GWB constantly mentioned Saddam and Al Qaeda in the same sentences? Do you consider such manipulative wordplay to be worthy of the leader of the free world? Would you like to see him continue with that tactic to achieve other ends? We have one forged document, and British Intelligence standing by the Africa/uranium story. And GWB admitting that it had no place in the SOTH. What do you think he meant by that? A program buried in rose gardens was not non-existent, it was waiting for the opportune moment for a restart. It was hardly a "program" and the fact that it remained buried testifies more to the argument that Iraq's nuclear program was moribund, than that it was viable. I can't imagine that the part was of much use, after 12 years underground, either. 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. On the contrary, I am pointing out a pattern of bias, wherein every ambiguous piece of intelligence was purposely selected and amplified to fit a preconceived notion. Surely if the Bush administration sincerely believed the intelligence they were getting, that cannot count as deliberate deception. The point is, they believed exactly what they wanted to believe, evidence notwithstanding. Perhaps, though, it is just as well, since in the process they have thoroughly discredited the abhorrent notion of preemptive warfare.