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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sidney Reilly who wrote (117465)	10/23/2003 8:06:57 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 281500

The CIA did say they didn't want that info in Bush's State of the Union before hand. George Tenet reviewed that SOU speech. Had he not concurred with the British analysis, he could have objected and asked Bush to have it removed. But again, people of your ilk, those who are interested in political demagoguery and attacking the current administration (and I believe that you are), are the ones who immediately claimed that those 16 words were a lie, EVEN THOUGH they had NO WAY of knowing whether the British was unimpeachable. But they had their own guy, Wilson, who disagreed with Bush, had been to Niger, who was available to claim that the Niger/Iraq connection was a fraud, effectively countering the British claim without directly calling the Brits liars. And of course, British intelligence, probably having sourced it from the French, and under an agreement not to reveal such (if they wished for future intel sharing with the Frogs) will say nothing except that they stand by their sources and analysis. So here's Bush, who foolishly quoted a foreign intel service in his SOU speech, trapped in a situation where he's unable to confirm it with his own intel service. But what's even more amazing, is that none of this is relevant since 1441 doesn't require actual proof of WMDs in Iraq to declare them in material breach. After all, the goal of the UNSC resolutions was to restore peace and stability in the region after Desert Storm, a condition which has ONLY existed by way of US military force through a protracted and dangerous containment policy. Thus, Saddam and his forces, WERE a threat EVERY DAY to our forces who were required to attack his AAA missile batteries, and to enforce no-fly zones so that we could prevent his from further massacres of his own people. Like a Army Civil Affairs LTC, located in Iraq, stated in yesterday's Washington Times, the fascination with WMDs people such as yourself have, COMPLETELY IGNORES the outright genocide that Saddam engaged in against the Iraqi people. (Unfortunately, this excellent article is apparently not available online). The demagogues of the previous administration, as he correctly pointed out, were all intent upon engaging this country in war against Serbia, all on the basis of humanitarian crisis and genocide. But where were you all over the past 10 years as the Shiites and Kurds were being massacred and thrown into mass graves? The mission of the UNSC in opposing Saddam's invasion of Kuwait, as I previously stated, was about evicting him from said country and restoring peace and regional stability. Genocide is just as destabilizing, especially when he killed more people with a bullet to the brain than he did with chemical WMDs. You might search your heart the next time you decide to criticize this president's decision to overthrow Saddam. Think about how those hundreds of thousands of men, women, and children, marched/trucked out into the empty desert, staring into a starry sky and praying to their god, waiting for their executioners to murder them and throw them into a mass grave. Hawk