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 : Impeach George W. Bush -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Steve Dietrich who wrote (27259)	5/20/2004 5:14:23 PM
From: jlallen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93284

And he's been saying ever since Tora Bora that OBL is dead even though the CIA has authenticated many of his audio tapes since then. Fact. No one...even the CIA can say for sure if OBL is still alive.... But JLA claims you have the goal of undermining the President's credibility to say they're not weapons labs. Wrong again...I said I found the CIA and other analysis more plausible..... What insinuation? The insinuation that this was something other than an accident, etc..... But since you and JLA agree that he lies to antagonize, why bother with the serious defense of his positions? We never agreed on any such thing......and wy indeed bother with any defense with folks like yourself to whom facts simply do not matter..... STEEEEEEEE-RIKE THREE STEVIE!!!! BUT THANKS FOR PLAYING!!! You are now confirmed an official petty, partisan, pinheaded Bush hating moe-ron.....

To: Steve Dietrich who wrote (27259)	5/20/2004 5:23:55 PM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93284

I have not followed the OBL dispute. If he derided the authentications, I would consider that going to far. If he merely said that he was not sure how you could discount so much of what the CIA says and then grasp hold of these authentications, I suppose he would have a point. Again, I agree that no one should assert flatly that they were mobile bio- labs. But there was a period where the matter remained in dispute, and people should not have been flatly saying they weren't. Now, I suppose, there is sufficient concensus against to assert it confidently, but not always, so I guess it depends on when this occured. To assert the facts in that way insinuates that Laura should have been charged, and also that it has some bearing on her so many years later. Since there is insufficient data in anything I have read to tell why she was not charged, and since she was a minor at the time anyway, it smells like a cagey attempt to smear to me. Having said that, I do not think that bringing up Hillary was the most appropriate rejoinder. My wife just called. I have to leave. I will take up the rest later.......