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 : Stockman Scott's Political Debate Porch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: stockman_scott who wrote (29598)	10/5/2003 2:09:39 AM
From: lurqer	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 89467

So Many Scandals. So Little Time. I tried to fit the Iraqi "problem" into this taxonomy. Clearly WMDs fit fall into Scandal Type A: The out-in-the-open, everyone-talks-about-it scandal The whole PNAC-hegemony-neo-con ideologue "thing" has got to be around A.75, but not a full Scandal Type B: The out-in-the-open, but-no-one-talks-about-it scandal For that you need to go a little deeper. The easiest way to do that is to "follow the money". Who pays the neo-cons, and who benefits? They used to go by the now hoary (that's hoary, not ...) name of "war profiteer". Now, they are proud members of the MIC (Military Industrial Complex). Who does the American public think funded the "think tanks" that kept the "cabal" a going concern during the Clinton years? Who funded Bush's (and thereby Cheney's) campaign? (Yeah, I know, the MIC weren't alone, but they were significant in the campaign funding.) And both who is now reaping the big benefits, and who stands to benefit the most from the $87 Billion? JMO lurqer