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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: frankw1900 who wrote (35263)	3/18/2004 12:07:23 PM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793905

Firstly, while the US intelligence did report about Iraq having a WMD capability, they never said that the threat from Iraq's actual or potential WMD capability was imminent. It is apparent that the decision to project the threat as imminent and hence calling for immediate regime change to pre-empt it was made at either the policy-making or political level or both, in the US as well as the UK. I know Bush never said that the threat was imminent, and I never heard Blair say that the threat was imminent. They said that the threat was too grave to wait until it was imminent, that then it would be too late. We now know that Saddam had longer range missiles than he was permitted to have under UN resolutions. We now know that he had stockpiles of empty warheads which could deliver chemical agents. And we know that he had dual use chemicals which could be used to make chemical weapons. How long would it take to turn those chemicals into chemical weapons? I am not an expert, but not long is my guess. The evidence for a nuclear program is also there. The various items buried under the rose garden of a nuclear scientist support the conclusion that Saddam was just biding his time. State sponsorship of terrorism has also been proved. Yesterday someone posted a list of persons and organizations receiving money - millions - from Saddam. Among them were the Mujahideen Khalq, the PLO, and Abu Abbas. Message 19928223 I know that we used to treat state sponsorship of terrorism as an internal problem, and jaw jaw rather than war war. But we're not going to do that anymore. At least Bush isn't. Kerry may want to go back to the Good Old Days of whining about state sponsorship of terrorism, rather than doing something about it before it is too late.