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 : Piffer Thread on Political Rantings and Ravings -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: gamesmistress who wrote (12296)	1/21/2004 2:16:22 PM
From: Oral Roberts	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 14610

I've been wondering how it is that zonder would know with certainty what the Bush administration knew or didn't know. With the election coming on I'm sure the Democratic party would be thrilled to have her inside source that could make the claim that the administration Knew that WMD would NOT be found because there were NONE.

To: gamesmistress who wrote (12296)	1/22/2004 10:40:05 AM
From: zonder	Respond to of 14610

would like to see any analyses which document this "effort to mislead the American nation regarding the WMDs of Iraq." I am surprised you have not noticed the questions raised about prewar intelligence in the past couple of months - its "quality", how reports was manipulated and/or exaggerated, etc. I would be happy to put together some stuff for you at a more leisurely time. Meanwhile, you might like to take a look at the 17 November 2003 Newsweek issue that has "How Dick Cheney Sold The War" written across the cover. msnbc.msn.com I also remember quite a few cases where expert opinions were discarded to give a false impression to the public, one of which was: While some CIA analysts thought they could be used for gas centrifuges to enrich uranium, the best experts at the energy department disagreed. But the national security advisor, Condoleezza Rice, said publicly that they could only be used for centrifuges. guardian.co.uk If you insist, I can compile a better index at some point. I can't believe you have missed all this, though. And also: Why did the US invade Iraq last year, then? The answer is WMDs. Huh?? Sorry that was not clear. I meant to say the reason Bush administration gave to attack Iraq last year was their view on the danger posed by Iraq's WMDs. You have avoided the question though. Would you care to answer this? When we look at the world, Saddam's Iraq was in no way the most dangerous a threat (definitely less than N. Korea), definitely not the most armed (doesn't even have the nukes Pakistan and India has), has been weakened and subdued by sanctions and inspections, and had no demonstrable link to terrorism and Al-Qaeda (like Syria, for example). Even on a humanitarian angle, Iraq was not even close to being the worst disaster spot of the planet. Why did the US invade Iraq last year, then? Message 19715616 You have also avoided acknowledging what I have said re "Saddam was not cooperating". Does that mean you accept my response? BTW, I never had the impression, and Bush DID NOT say, that Iraq was an imminent threat I did not say he uttered the words "imminent threat". I said this: how intelligence was manipulated to give the impression that Iraq was an imminent threat ("Saddam is in the process of procuring nuclear stuff", "He is six months away from nuclear capability" etc). Message 19715616 Can we at least agree that US public got the impression that Iraq was an imminent threat? Why on earth would Americans support invading Iraq otherwise, especially when US did have a very real imminent threat called Al-Qaeda?