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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (187883)	5/5/2004 4:12:04 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1573433

The lack of WMD doesn't say anything about wether Bush was lying or mistaken. It does to me and countless other people. Your conclusion based on that lack, and based on your opinion of Bush's body language, and trustworthiness and other things is that Bush was lying. The lack of WMD itself doesn't say anything about whether or not Bush was lying for any reasonable people. That doesn't mean that thinking Bush is lying is unreasonable it just means you need a better argument for it then simply "Bush said Iraq had WMD, we have found no WMD, therefore Bush was lying. You're not listening...........I repeat "it does to me and countless other people". You admit as much when you say " All the things that you think don't support the proposition that Bush lied are legitimate ways people could come to that conclusion." Of course you then go on to say - If so, as president of 280 million people, he had a responsibility to determine if HIS conclusion was correct before going to war. If determining without a shadow of doubt was not feasible, then he needed to explore every option at his disposal to get as close to "without a shadow of a doubt" as possible before starting a costly war. He did not do that. "Beyond a shadow of a doubt" was not possible. Stop right there........a president of this democracy does not have the right to start a pre emptive war without sufficient, verifiable proof. He did not have that proof. [As an aside, US presidents do not have the authority to start wars period but that doesn't seem to stop them.] As for using the resources at his disposal that was what had been done for over 10 years with no conclusion. For good reason......the data was faulty. "What sort of benefit would, in your opinion, justify the loss of about 700 Americans and 100 or so billion dollars?" The defense of the continguous US. Nothing short of that?? Exactly right........esp. if we want to wear the moniker that we are very fond of........a peace loving nation. " Apparently freeing 20+ million people from a brutal dictator, removing a potential threat to a vital region, and ending over a decades worth of low level war and harmful sanctions is not enough." That's right..........esp. because the above conclusion is based more on your bias rather than logic. All of those things I listed are based on facts and logic. You're right......I stand corrected. Nonetheless, my response to the original question remains the same. ted