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: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (494765)	11/18/2003 2:29:46 PM
From: Dan B.	Respond to of 769667

How odd. See next reply. Why would you be so off-base? Would you like Limbaugh in jail? If so, I heard a Democrat on TV last night call you a "reactionary(which would explain both)". Just curious. Dan B.

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (494765)	11/18/2003 2:30:49 PM
From: Dan B.	Respond to of 769667

Here's what? I take it that's your admission of your error. Thanks, I was right. We are talking of a far larger issue than addressed by "Anthony Cordesman, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies(not a CIA issued report addressing the subject as you'd claimed, but the report of one man who listened to CIA and other briefings given in Iraq over the last couple of weeks)." In point of fact, Cordsman said there was no "evidence" of Iraq having tried to give chemical or biological weapons to Al Qaeda(hasn't been found to date, is all he's been told). Cordsman in fact leaves open the possibility that "Fedayeen, (his(Saddam) son's irregular terrorist force)" have accomplished such transfers, and notes there is only "talk(testimony received or just fair suspicion on our part? There is no indication Cordsman has characterized "talk" further)" of that. This is far different from your "the CIA has already issued its report that Saddam Hussein did not help the terrorists" In fact, it proves you 100% wrong. Not even Cordsman goes that far, himself claiming to believe only one possibility remains for such transfers to have taken place; but he admits the possibility indeed, rather than say it "did not" happen. However, you said the conclusion was "Saddam did not help the terrorists," and we were talking of a memo describing long reported links between Iraq and Al Qaeda going back well before the war. Since your statement would on its face be considered inclusive of the whole subject at hand, I'd note that even Cordsman(let alone the CIA, LOL) indicates nothing so sweeping. I would point out that there are separate reports that Saddam's money has financed certain terrorists. In fact Saddams money likely has convinced terrorists that the future wealth of their families was more important than their own personal ability to be alive to enjoy family life at all. To make a further point, the terrorism we are fighting is a bit like Jim Jones on steroids. Religious in nature and based in a warped interpretation of a major religion in particular, it's a large terrorist fight(as 911 shows) moving against us and we had best keep battling back. Dan B.