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.

Strategies & Market Trends : VOLTAIRE'S PORCH-MODERATED -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: abstract who wrote (60431)	1/9/2004 1:01:19 PM
From: Sully-	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 65232

"I gather that the quotes I cited did not change your opinion one iota." Not at all. I think my responses & the links I provided clearly, accurately & factually establish why a couple of unsupportable allegations would not change my mind. There are so many valid reasons why Saddam needed removed besides the WMD argument. However, since folks only want to harp on that single point to the exclusion of all others, I will as well herein (IMO, terrorist ties are directly relevant to WMD's, so they are fair game too). It wasn't helpful not linking the article or citing who made the false allegations. Yes, I say false allegations. Why? Because I have thoroughly reviewed the evidence gathered & made public. I have closely read Bush Admin comments made public regarding this report. When one objectively reviews what was actually said, then compares what has been made public, it is clear that Iraq did pose a clear & growing threat (not an "imminent threat"). It is clear that, post 9/11, after Iraq's 12 years of massive denial & deception, all in clear violation of the Gulf War Cease Fire Agreement & 17 UN resolutions, Saddam was not going to disarm or give up his WMD's & WMD programs, ET AL. We also had hard evidence of Saddam's ties to & clear support of terrorist organizations. Remember that we had a significant presence in Iraq to "contain" Saddam. Those troops were sorely needed in the global war on terror. One way or another, Iraq had to be dealt with post haste. Please recall that our intelligence community capabilities & our military had been dramatically cut in the previous 8 years. We needed those troops to prosecute this global war. Since we were now in a global war on terrorism & these terrorists had designs on gaining access to WMD's, Iraq had to be dealt with as a priority in this war. Iraq's ties to terrorist groups was known within many intelligence communities globally, not just in the USA. Much of that information was highly classified & could not be made public. Some information was known & made public. Given the growing number of terrorist acts, the ever increasing viciousness & complexity of these attacks, it was clear that eliminating the threat of terrorists gaining access to WMD's was critical. Iraq had WMD's, WMD programs & clear irrefutable ties to terrorists. Saddam made Iraq a viable target of the war on terrorism. It was his own choosing, not ours. He could have complied. He steadfastly did not for 12 long years. That is a fact. OBL has made it clear that this is a global war & he is waging it whether we respond or not. That is a fact. Now back to the Carnegie think tank's evaluation. I have read numerous false allegations from other so-called "non- proliferation experts". The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace opposed the war & has maintained that a policy of continued diplomacy & appeasement remains the correct policy, despite the history of increasing numbers of & the growing viciousness of terrorist acts, including 9/11 (and in complete disregard for OBL's declared global war against "the infidels"). Not once have any of them provided any clear or compelling evidence of lies, deception, or that the Bush Admin, "systematically misrepresented", regarding Iraq's WMD's, WMD programs or ties to terrorism, etc. If anything, these folks misrepresent, distort or outright lie about what was said or what has been made public. Then they falsely conclude the Bush Admin "systematically misrepresented", etc. They often ignore, distort or misrepresent all factual information that runs counter to the conclusions they wish to draw. I see this as partisan politics purely for political gain. And their underhanded tactics are clearly treacherous by placing our national security at risk with lies, distortions & intentional deceit. If the US is hit again (and IMO, we will), what reaction do you think these folks will have? They will not admit they have been wrong all along & that their lies have contributed to the problem. No, they will again attack the Bush Admin & lay blame solely with them. Count on it. And the most frequently made claim, "No WMD's have been found!"...... What most of these folks all fail to acknowledge is that Saddam did continue to improve his WMD program capabilities in order to be able to quickly produce mass quantities of WMD's the minute that international scrutiny was gone (all in egregious violation of the Gulf War Cease Fire Agreement & all 17 UN Resolutions). They also fail to mention..... <font size=4> ....as to the weapons themselves, the amounts of CW we estimated Iraq to have had would fit in a backyard swimming pool or, at the upper limit of our estimate, in a small warehouse. A tremendously lethal arsenal of BW could of course be much smaller. And this in a country the size of California.....<font size=3> odci.gov