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 : Don't Blame Me, I Voted For Kerry -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Brumar89 who wrote (10295)	3/28/2004 12:08:17 AM
From: Orcastraiter	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 81568

There was no actionable intelligence. The time lag between the video and being able to strike was many hours. That's why they fast tracked arming the predator. You have to stop reading those RNC hate sites. Fair and balanced they never are. It's warping your mind...think for yourself. What did the Bush administration do against Al Qaeda before 9-11? Answer is not a damn thing. Orca

To: Brumar89 who wrote (10295)	3/28/2004 1:07:59 AM
From: ChinuSFO	Respond to of 81568

Was it actually a coalition of the unwilling? By Simon Grose Wednesday, 24 March 2004 WHY TONY BLAIR and John Howard joined George W. Bush to invade Iraq is the darkly beguiling question of our time. A year after the first shot, there seems less reason than ever. It seems these three leaders took a series of decisions based on worst-case assessments of Iraq's military capacity and intent, assessments they encouraged their intelligence services to deliver by their political rhetoric. They exaggerated mercilessly the case that Saddam was a threat to world peace, bullied the UN and defied it by starting a war - despite the absence of a credible Iraqi government in exile - seeming to rely on the naive idea that after they imposed "regime change" they would impose democracy and leave Iraq, applauded by grateful citizens. Now they have a chronic mess on their hands and no weapons of mass destruction to justify the deaths and continuing calamity they have wrought. How could they blunder so, these leaders of three of the most sophisticated democratic nations on Earth? With their spy satellites, eavesdropping networks and their knowledge of the social and political situation in Iraq, how could they so badly overestimate the threat Saddam posed and the outcome if they toppled him? ..contd. at canberra.yourguide.com.au