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 (123678)	1/25/2004 9:19:52 AM
From: Bilow	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Hi Hawkmoon; Re: "Carl... do yourself a favor and stop trying to claim that Ritter is a credible source." At this time, with the complete absence of WMDs in Iraq, Ritter is one of the few sources with any credibility left out there. He's changed his views on the subject, but unlike most analysts, as far as the existence of WMDs in Iraq, he was right on. The people now claiming that Ritter shouldn't be believed had fantastical notions that Iraq was chock-full of WMDs just waiting to be found. You, for example, were clearly full of crap on the subject. So why should anyone take your opinion on the subject over Ritter's? Do you want me to quote you to you at length? Some of what you wrote is, in retrospect, rather hilarious. Re: "Hmmm... so should the US support the UN (or even remain a member) given it's history of lies?" This is in response to my statement: "This isn't about supporting Baathism. It's about supporting the USA. You can't support America with lies." You address my statement by throwing in a red herring. The question of whether or not the US can be supported by a policy of deliberate lies has nothing to do with the UN at all. Instead, like the kid who has been found with his hand in the cookie jar, you try to change the subject to some other sinner. The simple fact is that the US is a nation based on the recognition of truth, not the fabrication of lies. Our power comes from our truth, not our lies, mistakes or our military. That our military is strong is only due to our insistence on truth in military affairs. The same applies to our world-wide influence in diplomacy and in business. It is in the protection of truth, not the subjugation of truth, or the subjugation of the people of Iraq, that our nation is strong. Vietnam did not strengthen the United States. It weakened us just as Iraq is weakening us now. -- Carl

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (123678)	1/26/2004 11:22:11 AM
From: GST	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Cheney 'waged war' on Blair Iraq strategy Mon Jan 26, 7:30 AM ET By James Blitz in London and Demetri Sevastopulo in Washington Dick Cheney (news - web sites), US vice-president, "waged a guerrilla war" against attempts by Tony Blair (news - web sites), the British prime minister, to secure United Nations (news - web sites) backing for the invasion of Iraq (news - web sites). Mr Cheney remained implacably opposed to the strategy even after George W. Bush, US president, addressed the UN on the importance of a multilateralist approach, according to a new biography of Mr Blair. The US vice-president, along with the neo-conservatives in the Bush administration, has consistently argued that the US could be constrained by the UN's inability to reach agreement over the need to invade Iraq. He told the World Economic Forum (news - web sites) in Davos at the weekend: "There comes a time when deceit and defiance must be seen for what they are. At that point, a gathering danger must be directly confronted. At that point, we must show that beyond our resolutions is actual resolve." The extent of Mr Cheney's opposition emerges in the biography of the British prime minister by Philip Stephens, the Financial Times' political columnist. In the run-up to the war, Mr Blair worked closely with Mr Bush to try to secure prior UN backing. But Mr Stephens writes that Mr Cheney's opposition to UN involvement left Mr Blair uncertain whether Mr Bush would go down the UN route until he uttered the relevant words in his speech to the UN general assembly in September 2002. One Blair aide remarked: "[Mr Cheney] waged a guerrilla war against the process . . . He's a visceral unilateralist". Another agreed: "Cheney fought it all the way - at every twist and turn, even after Bush's speech to the UN." In the US, Democrats have also accused Mr Cheney of putting pressure on intelligence agencies to produce evidence Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. On Friday, David Kay, the top US weapons inspector in Iraq, resigned, saying he did not believe Iraq had large stocks of biological and chemical weapons. Mr Stephens' book reveals a string of acid interventions by Mr Cheney during critical talks between the president and prime minister at Camp David in September 2002. Once, he directly rebuked Alastair Campbell, Mr Blair's communications director. In occasional contacts with British officials, Scooter Libby, the vice-president's chief of staff, made little secret of his boss's scorn for multilateralism. He once jibed: "Oh dear, we'd better not do that or we might upset the prime minister." Mr Stephens also reveals that Mr Blair was concerned about relations with other European leaders, particularly Jacques Chirac, French president. Mr Blair confided in close aides before the Iraq war that he believed Mr Chirac was personally "out to get him" because he feared the UK prime minister was usurping his own position as the natural leader of Europe. According to Mr Stephens, the prime minister came to the view that Mr Chirac wanted to see him fall from power after receiving intelligence reports about the French president's private conversations. story.news.yahoo.com