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: Nadine Carroll who wrote (124580)	2/10/2004 1:36:15 AM
From: Bilow	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 281500

Hi Nadine Carroll; Re: "It was the CIA's view that Iraq was a threat, but not an imminent threat. That was the Bush administration's view too, as laid out in the State of the Union. Bush said that after 9/11, it wasn't a good idea to wait around for Saddam to become in imminent threat." This is wonderful semantics, but it won't fly. If Saddam was not supposedly an "imminent" threat, then why did Bush spend so much time and effort talking up the fact that they were going to find oodles of WMDs just as soon as they got into Iraq. I suppose your theory is that he had some source of information better than the CIA. My explanation is that he did have another source of information, but that it was worse than the CIA, LOL. I've heard more logical explanations from 5 year-olds who've been caught with their hands in the cookie jar. The simple fact is that Bush & company never treated Iraq's WMDs (note, not WMD programs like that misquote you used from the French) as being *possibly* in existence or a *possible* threat, he knew for a fact right exactly where they were (near Baghdad). Blair did the same thing. I guess if Bush, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Cheney &c., had never said anything more than what was in the State of the Union address your point would have validity. But the fact is that Bush's beliefs in the existence of Iraqi WMDs are well proved by his actions. Either that or he faked the whole WMD search thing, LOL. From the Administration's many announcements of the imminent discovery of WMDs in Iraq it is clear that they believed in them. It stands to reason that if Bush believed in WMDs, it would be only logical that he would tell the American public about them. This is why the administration went to the trouble of talking about Iraqi WMDs so much, they really believed in them. These are simple, undeniable facts, but the Administration is (understandably) doing its best to occlude them. They were wrong. When David Kay said that "we were all wrong", he was right, if by "we" one only includes the Bush administration believers. -- Carl P.S. Re: "I directly quoted someone who turned out to have cropped a quote, which I didn't know about at the time." This is what you say, of course we should trust you. When you gave the quote, you did not give a link to it, just the quote. Here's my guess for what happened: You probably found the quote in one of the obscure neocon blogs. Since that isn't a definitive source, you naturally looked for another link. You found another link, but it included the word "programs". Realizing that the quote was problematical, you posted it without a link, thereby reducing the likelihood that Bilow would be able to find the real quote. As with most people, winning is more important than truth to you. This is only human; there are many situations where it is possible and convenient to lie your way out. A quagmire is not one of them.