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: Lane3 who wrote (45807)	5/20/2004 5:18:11 PM
From: Sully-	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793845

"If Rummy is being cautious then the media should be, too." I see. You want real caution from the media when it is good for the Bush Admin (when considering all the WMD evidence collected thus far). When the liberal media employs ZERO caution when little or no factual confirmation exists & it can be exploited to create the perception that is is bad for the Bush Admin, then you are "extremely selective". I think I'm starting to get it. :- "Given how deadly the stuff is, surely nothing larger than a teaspoon could be considered a small amount." One small drop is sufficient to kill you. "The question of whether this constitutes the presence of WMD in Iraq as promised is one question." That is how you have framed it. Considering only one shell to the exclusion of everything else is the only way to accomplish that. What army only fills one 155mm artillery shell? Think of all the time necessary to make the Sarin for just one shell. Then think of all the time needed to fill just one shell. Is that how an army prepares for combat? One shell of each type? What then? Shoot that shell, then begin processing the next shell? And what about the 155mm artillery shell filled with mustard gas found two weeks earlier. Is that to be completely excluded from your analysis, or is that to be considered separately to the exclusion of everything else? What about the dual use facilities that were not declared & all in material breech of UN Resolutions? How about all the precursor materials & vast quantities of "pesticides" that Saddam took great pains to hide that can be quickly converted into WMD's & were found in or right next to ammo dumps? Are they not worthy of consideration? Should they all be considered one at a time to the exclusion of all else? What about all the other evidence compiled regarding WMD's that are all material breeches of UN Resolutions? Look at each one isolated & to the exclusion of everything else too? I see serious flaws to your thinking. Can you?