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: Nadine Carroll who wrote (117682)	10/25/2003 6:56:16 PM
From: Sun Tzu	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Half the time you complain that Saddam was falsely charged with 9/11, the other half you complain that the PNAC crowd wanted to attack Iraq even before 9/11. This is contradictory... I see no contradictions here. May be you can point it out better. Put simply, the PNAC crowd wanted to attack Iraq no matter what. They falsely pinned 9/11 on him and used it as an excuse to invade Iraq. Where is the contradiction? Certainly they had the right to present their case as to why Iraq is a threat and why it should be attacked. But that reasoning had to be presented honestly rather than opportunistically. Again, I see no contradiction in my logic. You can accuse the neocons of many things, but not developing & presenting their arguments is not one of them. Oh I am not accusing them of not actively campaigning for their goals. I am accusing them of being misleading. To be fair, there were two sets of speeches and presentations. Those that were made before they came to power (and later some of those made to AEI and the like) which were candid and honest. Then there were those that were made to the general public and even the congress. Those are the ones I am complaining about. Again, I don't have a big problem with invading Iraq. What I mean by this, is that if the decision had been made with integrity, then I would have respected it even if disagreed. their ideas were better formed to deal with the crisis, more articulate, better thought out. And how not? Since they were the ones who had been most expecting a terrorist attack Yes certainly 9/11 was a godsend opportunity for them and they milked it for all they could. But for those of us with memory retention of more than 6 months, it was not cool and articulate logic that led to war but a rushed process of striking it while the iron was hot. And if the CIA had been trusted, he still would have seen false evidence, just slanted another way. We are not talking "good" CIA vs "bad" neocons here - the CIA track record was godawful; the neocon track record is still somewhat better as far as I can see. Now this is funny. In all my years of political debate, I have never been in a position to defend CIA, which you are pushing me to do. This is almost as strange as hearing the conservatives put CIA down. But let's get real. It took very little time to find out a student paper was plagiarized as a top level intel report. It took even less time to discover the Niger "evidence" as pure forgery. And both of these happened before the invasion. Assuming the admin was not just after excuses to invade Iraq, just how much evidence did they and Bush need to decide to re-examine the facts? And if you don't trust CIA, then pick another organization or create a task force to look into it. Why rush into a "preemptive" war given so much controversy?