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: sylvester80 who wrote (442874)	8/14/2003 1:27:27 PM
From: jimcav	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

Certainly not hard evidence and facts....it was an opinion piece slanted just for your viewing pleasure apparently. The Bush comments on the african uranium and tubes are really straightforward and not lies....they are accurate comments, you just draw the conclusion that Bush is telling the world that Saddam DID in fact buy uranium and that he DID get the tubes. That is not what he said "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production. Saddam Hussein has not credibly explained these activities." If you actually read what the man said, it is certainly truthful that the British gov't said and stands by those claims, and other intelligence sources did claim Saddam was TRYING to buy those tubes. Those claims might be faulty, or they might not, we don't know, but Bush's comments were in truth. The DIA did not in fact find that the trailers were definitely used for the sole production of hydrogen as the author of the article claims. It was determined that it was possible that they could have been used for such production, although it was highly inefficient. The author, as well as most demolibs take uncalled for liberties in twisting the truth here. Bunkers were found empty? That must be very damning evidence. The possibility that they were cleaned out and decontaminated before we got there could never cross your mind because it goes against your agenda. Again, hardly hard proof. And that garbage about the officers conversation being staged is even admitted by the author of the article to be purely hypothetical. Don't attempt to push that off as hard evidence and proof -- it's just a theory that you use to advance your agenda. The way you sign off your posts is as I said before, quite funny. You take an op/ed piece with admitted hypothetical theories in it and push it off as hard proof of treason -- If you wish to believe these theories, that is certainly your choice. Just because everyone else can't see the twisted theories as truth the way you do, proclaims to me that there are still some intelligent people out there.