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: LindyBill who wrote (45797)	5/20/2004 12:51:28 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793843

Oh, it's Sarin, all right. Rummy was just being cautious because the last confirming test had not been done. Could be. Probably is. The issue is media coverage, though. If Rummy is being cautious then the media should be, too. They can say "a substance thought to be sarin" instead of just "sarin." I just found an editorial only a couple of hours old that specifies four liters of it. Not three or four liters of it but four. Rummy said "a small amount." When I first heard that my mind's eye came up with something between a trace and a teaspoon. Given how deadly the stuff is, surely nothing larger than a teaspoon could be considered a small amount. But then I heard something on the order of a gallon. Perhaps a gallon is a small amount when you look at it in terms of an arsenal rather than one weapon. I dunno. Anyway, that's what drew my attention to it. You will notice I haven't commented on this WMD controversy. The question of whether this constitutes the presence of WMD in Iraq as promised is one question. I haven't formed any conclusions about that yet given lack of info. The media bias question of whether it's appropriate to report "four quarts of sarin" at this point and why some would choose to do so is another matter, one that does not lack info.