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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: LindyBill who wrote (11157)	10/7/2003 10:01:56 AM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793776

Maybe Wilson isn't actually a rogue, but somehow doing Bush's bidding? Maybe Wilson's Machiavellian target wasn't Bush, but Kaddafi. Using Lexis-Nexis, I read old reports on Saddam buying uranium in Africa - Libya was acting as intermediary between Niger and Saddam in the 1980s and early 1990's. The timing works. Khaddafi recently (August) started toeing the line vis-a-vis the Lockerbie incident, AFTER Wilson's silly tirades (June/July), and the UN sanctions against Libya were lifted in September. Maybe Bush decided to "pretend" that Libya was being good, nudge-nudge-wink-wink, because it's better to have Khaddafi on "our side" where we can watch him, under the principle of keeping your friends close and your enemies closer. Or maybe it's more Machiavellian than that, even. Maybe it was Blair and/or British intelligence. After all, in the State of the Union address (SOTU, is the kewl acronym these days), Bush carefully attributed the report that Saddam was attempting to buy uranium in Africa to British intelligence. Bush didn't mention Niger by name, is my recollection. But I can't think of any reason for Bush to try to screw Blair. It really is a curious series of events. At any rate, my perception of Bush is that he'd rather be effective than have the world think he's smart, so having Wilson kick sand in his eyes probably doesn't bother him in the least, as long as something is gettng done.

To: LindyBill who wrote (11157)	10/7/2003 12:38:29 PM
From: JohnM	Respond to of 793776

Just another hit job on Wilson. And not very artfully done. Gets pretty disgusting.

To: LindyBill who wrote (11157)	10/7/2003 1:41:07 PM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793776

Leakgate. It has a name now. And it appears that Wilson is waffling on whether his wife actually was undercover or not. On the Don Imus show this morning, he refused to answer Imus' question directly. He told Imus to call the CIA. Well, the Washington Post tried calling the CIA last week, and the CIA wouldn't say. Democrats are so shocked, shocked, that something this sexy appears to have fallen into their laps that they're bungling it. No wonder Hillary has decided she can do better. ;^)