SI
SI
discoversearch

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: cnyndwllr who wrote (131545)5/5/2004 1:53:21 PM
From: Dr. Id  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 281500
 
Great post. Not that it will do anything to sway the "Believers".



To: cnyndwllr who wrote (131545)5/5/2004 1:54:51 PM
From: Lou Weed  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 281500
 
<<We now know that a number of intelligence experts were warning that the intelligence that indicated the existence of wmds was "soft" and potentially unreliable. We know that even at the time there were a significant number of analysts who were concerned that the threat was being "over hyped...exaggerated.">>

Here's an article that was released by the CESR before the invasion last year. Check out the "Current Iraqi WMD capabilities" section. Contrary to what a lot of people want to believe, there was also a lot of evidence that the intelligence that this administration based it's actions upon was very questionable........

cesr.org

MON



To: cnyndwllr who wrote (131545)5/5/2004 3:14:48 PM
From: Neocon  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 281500
 
They were not disproven by the inspection process. Even Kay said that there was testimony that the WMDs had been transported to Syria, and some soft evidence. The problem is settling the matter. He offered as a personal opinion that Saddam had been duped by his own people into believing that the programs were robust, instead of skeletal. At least get your facts straight.