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 : Just the Facts, Ma'am: A Compendium of Liberal Fiction -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Original Mad Dog who wrote (5687)	3/19/2004 6:49:01 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 90947

I love how low demolibs have to stoop to attempt to falsely claim a Bush Admin official lied. Meanwhile, finding a demolib who lies is like picking low hanging fruit. :-o

To: Original Mad Dog who wrote (5687)	3/19/2004 7:18:20 PM
From: Thomas M.	Respond to of 90947

The first one does not use the term "immediate threat" at all. It simply says that while some think the threat is in a 5-7 year time frame, Rumsfeld himself "would not be so certain." I think that's an entirely appropriate thing to say. Yes, for a propagandist. Of course, Saddam had no nukes, and everyone knew it. The only question was about the last few scraps of his bio/chem programs. Your endorsement of Clinton as an honest person is noteworthy, given the fact that he was impeached for lying. "No terror state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world than the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq." A stunning statment, considering North Korea's working nuclear missiles, and our history of aggression against them. Your endorsement of this statement speaks volumes about your own credibility. Tom