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 : Stockman Scott's Political Debate Porch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sully- who wrote (36646)	1/31/2004 1:20:34 PM
From: NOW	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 89467

HItchens? A classic clown trotskyist neocon...wonderful at obfuscation no doubt...

To: Sully- who wrote (36646)	1/31/2004 4:53:16 PM
From: Thomas M.	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 89467

ROFL! That piece is so shoddy that is brings to mind the Niger forgery. But if he really didn't have any stores of unlawful WMD, it was very dumb of him to act as if he still did or perhaps even to believe that he still did. Saddam invited the UN inspectors back in, umimpeded. One of Tony Blair's advisers, Jonathan Powell, changed the wording of a report in the following way. It had originally read: "Saddam Hussein is willing to use chemical and biological weapons if he believes his regime is under threat." The Blairite alteration removed the last eight words. Since everything was a threat in Saddam's disordered mind LOL! That's Hitchens' active imagination at work. The intelligence report made a critical distinction, and the pro-war liars like Blair, Hitchens and you want to dismiss that distinction. The British government's claim that such weaponry was deployable within "45" minutes is irrelevant from both sides, since if the weapons weren't there they couldn't be used at all, and if they were there they presumably existed in some condition of readiness. It is "irrelevant" if Saddam had nuclear weapons ready to be deployed in 45 minutes or if he needed 5 years to deploy them? Hitchens is a stupid old drunk. Tom

To: Sully- who wrote (36646)	1/31/2004 4:57:14 PM
From: Thomas M.	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 89467

David Kay and his colleagues in the post-1991 inspections met with every possible kind of evasion, deceit, and concealment. Then they had to watch as their most golden inside informers, the Kamel brothers, were lured back to Iraq by their father-in-law on a promise of safe conduct and put to death at once. Hitchens neglects to mention that these "golden inside informers" told us that all the WMD were destroyed. Hitchens is remarkably dishonest about this whole affair. Why do you cite him as a source? Tom

To: Sully- who wrote (36646)	2/1/2004 1:32:53 PM
From: lurqer	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 89467

A Tale of Two Reports David Kay and Lord Hutton. If you read the British papers you will discover that Lord Hutton's report has primarily succeeded in so tarnishing Hutton, that he will never be called again for such duty. I know you have a prediction for massive numbers of references. If you want some in this matter, just Google < Hutton whitewash >. Dr. Kay and his bias, and how one judges the credibility of statements from a biased individual, have been spelled out on this thread. JMO lurqer

To: Sully- who wrote (36646)	2/1/2004 4:23:07 PM
From: mishedlo	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 89467

WASHINGTON - Flawed intelligence undermines the Bush administration's policy of striking first if U.S. interests are threatened, the former chief U.S. weapons inspector in Iraq (news - web sites) said Sunday. "If you cannot rely on good, accurate intelligence that is credible to the American people and to others abroad, you certainly cannot have a policy of pre-emption," David Kay said. Kay has said the administration's intelligence on Iraq was "almost all wrong" and that the information on which Bush's war decision was based was erroneous. story.news.yahoo.com