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: Kevin Rose who wrote (465946)	9/27/2003 4:50:14 PM
From: sylvester80	Respond to of 769670

...or the intelligence was fine and pointed out the lies of Bush, but the Bush neoCONs were already set on their plans (no matter what) for totally other reasons (like corporate money, Israeli interests, oil etc...)

To: Kevin Rose who wrote (465946)	9/27/2003 6:43:14 PM
From: Dan B.	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

Re: "There are two growing possibilities, as we fail to find either of these important premises for invasion: 1) Our intelligence was terrible. 2) Our intelligence was 'enhanced' by those wishing to see Saddam removed from power. " False. The third possiblilty is also growing. It is that we DO have evidence that Saddam harbored terrorists, including harboring a terrorist training camp replete with a passenger airliner on its runway-less site, just no iron-clad proof. It includes the fact that Osama LONG had lobbied for Iraq by demanding an end to sanctions on it. As for Saddam, had he nothing up his sleeve, he truly would not have been so averse to letting us know(as even editorialist Mike Allen noted is not understandable, not if Saddam truly ended all efforts to get us). The THIRD possibility includes the fact that Saddam had at least the best part of a year to hide what he had a documented history of trying fervently to hide. In this case, one ought only wish we'd had the resources to move on Iraq immediately following Afghanistan(i.e. about a year sooner). The bottom line then is that your premise misses a huge reality based in un-refuted evidence. Hence(and given the good most agree can come of our action in Iraq), there is indeed no reason to clamor for investigation into something most likely done well and for the right reasons. It simply is not logical to say that one of your two mentioned possibilities must be the answer(not by a long shot). Frankly, given nothing more than Saddam's known behavior leading into our removal of him, the third possibility is far more likely. There, I've continued the discussion, answering your argument. Dan B.