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: Machaon who wrote (450199)	8/29/2003 11:18:53 AM
From: Skywatcher	Respond to of 769667

Deepening Doubts on Iraq Where are the weapons of mass destruction? As President Bush and other administration officials made the case for war with Iraq, their biggest selling point was the claim that Saddam Hussein's Iraqi regime possessed chemical weapons. Allegations he had biological weapons were shakier; assertions he had nuclear arms or could build them were even more dubious. There were other ever-shifting official rationales for the Iraq invasion, like Hussein's torture and killing of his own people and promoting Mideast democracy through his ouster. The main justification, however, for sending Americans to die in the desert was Hussein's earlier use of chemical weapons, his continued possession of them and the imminent threat he would inflict them on the United States. In this year's State of the Union speech, Bush cited United Nations reports or U.S. intelligence that showed that Hussein had failed to account for 25,000 liters of anthrax, 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin and material for 500 tons of sarin, mustard agent and VX nerve agent. "From three Iraqi defectors, we know that Iraq, in the late 1990s, had several mobile biological weapon labs designed to produce germ warfare agents," Bush said. Where are those chemicals, those poisons or those labs? Times staff writer Bob Drogin reported Thursday the deeply disturbing news that U.S. intelligence officials were now laboring to learn whether they had been fed false information about Iraq's weapons, especially by defectors. U.N. inspectors' prewar searches found no chemical, biological or nuclear stockpiles. Hundreds of inspectors combing Iraq since major combat ended May 1 have fared no better. One U.S. intelligence official says analysts may have been too eager to find evidence to support White House claims about Iraqi arms. Intelligence and congressional sources told Times reporters in October, five months before the invasion, that senior Bush officials were pressuring CIA analysts to shape their assessments of the threat to build the case against Hussein. On the eve of war, this editorial page said Iraq should be given more time to disarm, otherwise the U.S. "risks being branded as the aggressive and arrogant superpower that disregards the wishes of the international community." The United States now wears that label, especially in light of the administration's vacillations on involving other nations' forces in postwar Iraq. But worse is the possibility that nearly 300 American personnel and dozens of British soldiers, plus U.N. officials and untold numbers of Iraqis, have died due to incredibly bad or corrupted intelligence. In Britain, a Sunday Telegraph poll showed that 67% of the public thought that their government, the main U.S. ally, had deceived the British people to get them into Iraq. The war was more popular in the U.S. But Bush, administration officials, intelligence analysts and Congress need to keep asking: Where are the weapons of mass destruction? And if they are not found, was the defiant U.S. insistence that Iraq had them the result of incompetence or lies? BOTH! CC

To: Machaon who wrote (450199)	8/29/2003 11:21:11 AM
From: jlallen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

The United Nitwits should be glad that Bush is offering them a chance to redeem themselves.... That rejek is one sorry dude.....

To: Machaon who wrote (450199)	8/29/2003 2:05:46 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

You wrote:"Bush angrily dismissed the UN and most of our important allies before the war and now they not available to help in the worsening crisis overseas" He dismissed the Unethical Nations (UN)? The UN is controlled by our enemies. Would you want America to give up it's sovereignty to the corrupt, mismanaged UN? Oh, here it comes........the typical conservative lament.......by working with others including the UN, we are giving up our sovereignty. You guys are pitiful. Is there a GOP handbook that teaches you this stuff? And you know what, I know exactly who you were when I was a kid. You were the guys that threatened to take home all your toys if we didn't play by YOUR rules. Save the irrelevant UN talk and the loss of American sovereignty for your cell meetings at party headquarters. America's sovereignty is hardly at threat. In fact, its we who are threatening the sovereignty of others. Who were those important allies that are not available to help? France? France has been a backstabber against America way before Bush got into office. France has long been an ally of the US. More importantly, Germany has been a key and trusted ally for decades. We blew them off like they were trailer trash. You wrote:"and finally, our only significant ally left, T. Blair, Bush's poodle, is in serious trouble at home" America has other significant allies including Australia, Israel, Poland, and the other Eastern Bloc countries, among others. Fine. You can have Poland and Bulgaria and Macedonia; I'll stick with Germany where we don't have to BUY their friendship and support. How much are we paying Poland to fight in Iraq? I forgot the number.....I know its in the millions! You refer to Blair as Bush's poodle because he was a strong supporter of America??? Let's see your logic. You insult a country (England) that acts as a friend to America and stands with America. But you admire a corrupt, antiAmerican organization like the Unethical Nations (UN). I don't admire the UN but I see its need in this world. As for T. Blair, I admired him until he got bullocked by Bush. And....... you say that you aren't antiAmerica? Trust me, the anti American is the author of the post to which I am responding.