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: Dan B. who wrote (479695)	10/22/2003 12:22:33 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

Re: "Huh? The White House has admitted that the info was not correct and reported erroneously." No, not so. The White House admitted no such thing. You have a problem in logic, if you believe words from the White House ever amounted to such. Not even Wilson himself said he knows it was false, only that he couldn't verify it beyond the one original source(who has not changed his testimony that it IS true, to our knowledge). Sorry, you have a problem with reading comprehension. The docunment the WH held up as proof in Bush's State of Union had been proven to be a forgery well before the State of the Union. In fact, those comments were stricken from one of his speeches in the prior fall. Either the WH is very badly dysfunctional and incompetent, or dishonest. Take your pick! Re: "I will not let you have it both ways." If you understood the rules of logic, you would know I did not even try to. Knowing there is a high likelihood we'll be attacked again even if we don't fight back, does not preclude one from believing that fighting back can "slow and/or even fully prevent further attacks on our soil." Also, when I say fighting back can "slow and/or even fully prevent further attacks on our soil," it does not preclude my belief that we may be attacked again despite the fact that we have fought back. Then what was the point of fighting back? Just to show we could do it? Re: "Speculation(that Saddam is known to have had WMD)........that's all it was." You seem singularly unaware of and/or incapable of correctly representing, well-accepted reality. It is U.N. verified fact(as has been recognized by even France and Germany all along). How can it be verified when the inspectors left the country in 1998 BEFORE there could be 100% verification? You need to read the UN documentation closely.......or you can remain unaware of the facts........its your choice.