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: Hawkmoon who wrote (123194)	1/14/2004 8:14:18 AM
From: GST	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

That is simple Hawk -- Clinton didn't lie about WMD. You can't say the same about Cheney and Bush. None of this would matter beyond petty politics if not for the fact that Cheney and Bush then used the lies they told as the basis for selling a radical change in US foreign policy.

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (123194)	1/14/2004 11:47:46 AM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 281500

It seems to me that you and GST are making a mistake that is grounded on your political predilections. As you know, I share yours, so please don't shoot the messenger. vbg The fact is that there was a history of WMD use and production on Saddam's part; he acted like he had something to hide in 1998 when he made life miserable for the inspectors; he was known to have been very close to making a nuclear bomb in 1991; inspectors thought he had WMDs; he was evasive in '03, acting like he had something to hide, etc., etc., ad nauseum. These facts can reasonably lead to the conclusion that he had WMDs. Coupled with the failure of containment, this made Saddam look like a serious threat. As it turns out, unless something dramatic occurs, the perceptions did not match the reality. A mistake may have been made. Was it a reasonable mistake? In my view, given Saddam's past history, yes. Even Pollack, as objective an observer as there is, seems to have over-estimated Saddam's nuclear efforts. The rest is pure politics. The left will argue neocon skullduggery while the right will argue the facts. I'll argue that a mistake may have been made, but that it was a reasonable one under the circumstances for which no one (not even Clinton, and that's quite a concession, for me) should be faulted. In the meantime, the focus should be on the results which appear to me on the whole to be quite positive. C2@assomeonesays"let'smoveon".com