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: Knighty Tin who wrote (494657)	11/18/2003 10:02:24 AM
From: Kenneth E. Phillipps	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

Ashcroft helps the terrorists buy guns. msnbc.com

To: Knighty Tin who wrote (494657)	11/18/2003 10:25:32 AM
From: DavesM	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769667

re: "But these so-called reporters talking about documents that can't be seen are ridiculous. It is like Prince Charles and his alleged boyfriend. If you can't show some proof, why spin the story as being 100% accurate?" Because most Americans already belive that there is a link between Iraq and al Qaeda. The ones that don't, won't be swayed anyway. Leaders of Abu Sayyaf (a group founded by one of bin Laden's men - his brother in-law) have already stated publicly that they were offered bounties by Iraq to kill Americans. Independent journalists, after the war, found and published about Iraqi documents, confirming both communication and cooperation between al Qaeda and the former Iraqi Government. And this report is not the first, to state that detainees (taliban/al Qaeda/Iraqi) have confirmed a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda. It should be also noted that political opponents of the President state that there is "no evidence linking Iraq to 9/11", from this, others make the leap - that this means there is "no evidence linking Iraq and al Qaeda".

To: Knighty Tin who wrote (494657)	11/18/2003 10:47:29 AM
From: JDN	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769667

Dont know why you call the Weely Standard SLEAZY. I am under the impression its very prestegious. The big rumble is over the fact this was very sensitive information probably from sources we would prefer NOT to know what we know about them and its been leaked. An illegal act, possibly subject to harsh sentence. He didnt veer off the topic, he gave a plausible answer then said the true answer is he hasnt a clue. IMHO the REALLY true answer is the others were afraid of potential legal hazards for reason given above. jdn