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: Win Smith who wrote (123209)	1/14/2004 3:48:54 PM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

The war was driven by a handful of key people, maybe 10 or so. Cheney, Rumsfeld, Perle, Wolfowitz, Feith, Libby , maybe 3 or 4 others; W was apparently in on the program from the start of his term. That's the fact, Jack, if you want to argue the impetus for the war came from someplace else, you got quite a body of evidence going against you. Then there's these "facts": Win, you're completely blind to my point. Let's asssume arguendo that you are correct and that your rendition of the facts re: WMDs is truth in its majestic crystalline pulchritude, truth with a capital "T". Other than to suggest that a conspiracy existed, your argument fails to address the "whys and wherefores" of this nefarious, probably illegal, certainly un-American, and absolutely, positively immoral, neocon black-op conspiracy that should land the conspirators at Ft. Leavenworth pronto and tout suite. A point that takes me back to the fact that you are consciously avoiding mine: A reasonable mistake with regard to WMDs was made; Clinton made it, too. The result, however, whether you like it or not, will be and already is salutary. If you are completely steadfast in the notion that no mistake was made and that the war was criminally oversold, I nevertheless suggest that you carefully consider Friedman's discussion in Slate. For once, I agree wholeheartedly with him....so long as he keeps taking his Elavil, his argumentation is spot on. Today, anyway. The neocon conspiracy bit is getting a bit shopworn, Win, particularly as you have damned little else to offer. You're going to have to inject a bit more analysis and deliberation into your arguments. The Slate series is a good place to start, particularly as not all the leftish bloviating pundits invited to participate have responded. They may give you a good starting point.