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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: jlallen who wrote (442423)	8/13/2003 3:44:46 PM
From: cnyndwllr	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769670

Jlallen, I was wrong and I admit it. You responded with an articulate, thoughtful post and you raised several points that are worthy of further discussion. >>"Bush administraiton officials were clear that there was some evidence of ties between Al Quaeda and Iraq but nothing definitive. Moreover, the larger concern over Iraq was terrorism as a whole not just Al Quaeda. Statements that Iraq trained and supported terrorists are facts."<< Technically you are partially correct. The misleading nature of the statements is found in the shrillness, the sense of threat and the scope of the threat which they intentionally exaggerated in order to assure that they would have enough support for a war. Remember that EVERY country has ties to Al Queda, including America, Britain, Saudi Arabia and on and on. There are agents in those countries, there are nationals of those countries that are Al Queda and there are funds channeled into Al Queda pockets from those countries. It's also true that there was a terrorist training camp in Iraq, BUT IT WAS IN THE TURKISH, IRANIAN BORDER to the north where Saddam was NOT in control. There has been NO evidence that the Saddam Iraqi government trained and supported terrorists any more than there is that the U.S. trained and supported terrorists. This is true even though the hijackers were trained to "fly" airliners in the U.S. More in next post.

To: jlallen who wrote (442423)	8/13/2003 3:50:04 PM
From: Thomas A Watson	Respond to of 769670

Mr. Allen that was an excellent post. The only place where our opinions differ is in this idea of a smoking gun. It kind of a loose concept in any case. Before the War, I believed that Saddam had stockpiles of WMD. He may have had them up till the end or until recent inspectors went into the country and they indeed may exist now. Buts based upon what we know now, it is rationale to come with reasoning to suggest why they were destroyed in lieu of being hidden. But no matter what rationale one uses, it was reasonable based upon all the cues of intelligence to conclude they did exist. That the programs for development existed. Some proffer US credibility requires a smoking gun. I think US credibility is served better by everyone knowing if we decide you are guilty you are toast. Don't send mixed signals like Saddam. America errs on the side of safety. Every dem running or mentioned is to cowardly to make the hard choices. America in it's heart, soul and mind knows that. The anus in America is the stinky orifice that discharges smelly stuff and that is where the Dem party lives. And in my opinions on smoking gun WMD the more generic meaning, I will be very happy to be shown wrong.

To: jlallen who wrote (442423)	8/13/2003 3:58:43 PM
From: cnyndwllr	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

Jlallen, re: >>"I am not aware that our intelligence community discredited the uranium purchase issue. In fact, our intelligence community was unable to independently verify that a particualr purchase had been made from Niger. The Brits based their intelligence upon independent informaiton, not all of which was shared with the US and which they still stand behind."<< It is rarely, if ever, possible to prove a negative. When someone says "prove they didn't (you choose) -beat their wife-molest little children-do cocaine," how do you possibly prove that? Similarly, when we say that our intelligence community could not rule out the Niger uranium story, that's a fact. All they could do was to say that there was no credible evidence to support it. When Bush said that British intelligence supported that allegation, what he was actually saying was that it was, as far as we knew, a credible allegation. It wasn't credible and our intelligence people had investigated the allegation and found it baseless. It doesn't matter what some other country SAYS it has that it CAN'T SHARE. It's ludicrous to assume that Britain is keeping secrets from the U.S. and it's own citizens on an issue that threatens to result in the defeat of both Tony Blair and George Bush. If there was something there you would see the head of the CIA on national television putting his credibility on the line and saying "I have seen the top secret British information and it is credible." As with the British claim that Bush repeated to the effect that Iraq could mobilize their wmds in less than an hour, we see stonewalling, sleight of hand and no good explanation. More in next post.

To: jlallen who wrote (442423)	8/13/2003 4:28:01 PM
From: cnyndwllr	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769670

Jlallen, re: >>"As far as WMD, it is now clear the Iraq did possess illegal weapons (Al-Samouds), that there does appear to have been some BW capability (mobile biolabs), that Iraq was, at the very least trying to preserve the capability of creating a nuclear weapon (buried centrifuge and nuke docs., dual use aluminum tubes)in violation of the Gulf war accords. Add to that the atropine injectors and chem suits found all over Iraq and it is not a big leap of faith to see that something is rotten in Baghdad. The Iraqis became masters at deception as far as these programs...so it is no surprise to me that it is taking some time to unearth the smoking gun given all the time the Saddam apolgists provided for him to prepare for the invasion.....Add to all the foregoing the discovery of Salman Pak, terror training facility, the presence of Abu Abbas, Saddam's payments to families of homicide bombers....and the utter vacancy of the pinhead Bush hating morons position is quite clear.....factor in the mass graves.....and its downright silly......"<< Here you leave me shaking my head. Most of the evidence of wmds that you cite should more accurately be viewed as evidence of a LACK OF WMDS. The "biolabs," according to the experts, as opposed to the spinners, were not biolabs and if they were, they were not designed to be effective. Look under the initial headlines and there are many well reasoned SCIENTIFIC explanations of why they COULD NOT have been used as biolabs as a result of their designs that would not have contained and prevented contamination. The missiles had a slightly longer range than allowed. This was a minor violation, but it was a violation and they were being destroyed through the U.N. inspection process. The buried centrifuge had been buried for a decade. It takes many more and much more work to create the enriched uranium for a bomb. The fact that it had been buried for a decade tells us that there was no nuclear program. What we weren't told was that the same scientist who revealed the centrifuge also told us that there was no program and that the aluminum tubes we referred to as further proof of a nuclear program, were not intended for that purpose or designed for that purpose. As you'll recall, the Bush people had kept touting that as further "evidence" even after our own nuclear scientists had debunked that claim. The injectors and chem suits prove that at one time Saddam anticipated that he would either use chemical weapons, or have them used against him. It tells us nothing about whether in the year 2002 he had them himself. The "masters of deception" argument is circular. If you assume that he is a liar, then when he says he doesn't have them, you can assume he does. It's a catch 22 for him. If he has them he can produce them and satisfy the "disarmament" demand. If he doesn't have them then since he's a liar, and a good one, we can assume that they are there, he's hiding them, and he must, therefor, have plans to use them. It's a no-win for him and a no-lose for any Bush people that are not going to take "no" for an answer when it comes to invading and occupying Iraq. Saddam was encouraging and rewarding the suicide bombers in Israel. That's a serious act and it is not excused, even though other Arab nations were also supporting those acts. The bottom line is that there was no wmd threat to the U.S., the world or his neighbors. The belief that there was had been created by a belief that the U.S. had an effective intelligence gathering arm, that the intelligence they'd gathered was being accurately represented by the Bush people and that with the level of alarm the Bush people were exhibiting and articulating, there must have been something there. It turns out that what was there was bad, but not the horrible scenario that we were spoon fed. Many other nations said this before the invasion but we believed Bush. They were right, we were wrong and now we are left with the enormously costly and gut wrenching losses that it will take to complete a job we may not be able to complete. That makes me sad, mad and disgusted.