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.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Gold Price Monitor -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: long-gone who wrote (97678)	5/26/2004 5:00:10 PM
From: Enigma	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 116815

Don't get too excited old Neocon - old stock most likely and what about all the depleted uranium and cluster bombs left behind by the coalition to affect people for an eternity - WMDs as a little present from Uncle Sam

To: long-gone who wrote (97678)	5/26/2004 9:05:44 PM
From: Richnorth	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 116815

Rightly or wrongly, I think they are grasping at straws! But, so desperate/urgent are their attempts to prove the existence of WMDs in Iraq that any minute amounts of WMD materials found will be sensationalized and declared to be indicative of the existence of yet to be found WMDs. BTW, I won't be surprised that before long, "evidence" of WMDs may be "planted" and used to bolster the Coalition's case for having started the war. Of course, even if the evidence is real, there will be those who will contend it was planted. Anyway, given the misinformation that has been doled out in the recent past, folks will tend to be skeptical in general.......................... Is the present find just a prelude to bigger finds?????????

To: long-gone who wrote (97678)	5/27/2004 1:20:27 PM
From: marek_wojna	Respond to of 116815

There are some honest and decent Americans in the media. At least good start. <<US paper apologises for WMD reports Wednesday 26 May 2004, 12:50 Makka Time, 9:50 GMT The newspaper depended on defectors bent on regime change Related: US journalists lament standards The worst US media performances Tools: Email Article Print Article Send Your Feedback The New York Times has admitted that information it published about Iraq's purported weapons of mass destruction programme was not supported. In a letter from its editors entitled The Times and Iraq the paper printed on Wednesday that its coverage had not been "rigorous". "In some cases, information that was controversial then, and seems questionable now, was insufficiently qualified or allowed to stand unchallenged. "Looking back, we wish we had been more aggressive in re-examining the claims as new evidence emerged - or failed to emerge." The Times cited five stories - including several page one articles - written between 2001 and 2003 that had accounts of biological, chemical and nuclear weapons in Iraq. None of the stories have ever been independently verified, some were even discredited by its own reporters or reporters at another news organisation. But when in-house journalists wrote stories that refuted the original reporting, the corrections were buried, the Times said. Scapegoat Sources for the stories depended at least in part on information from a circle of Iraqi informants, defectors and exiles bent on "regime change" in Iraq, the Times said. "Looking back, we wish we had been more aggressive in re-examining the claims as new evidence emerged - or failed to emerge" editorial letter, New York Times Ahmad Chalabi, once a favoured Iraqi exile of the Bush administration whose headquarters in Baghdad were raided last week by Iraqi police, was cited as a named source who introduced Times reporters to several exiles. "Complicating matters for journalists, the accounts of these exiles were often eagerly confirmed by United States officials convinced of the need to intervene in Iraq," the Times added. "Accounts of Iraqi defectors were not always weighed against their strong desire to have Saddam Hussein ousted." The New York Times is the US' third largest circulation newspaper behind USA Today and the Wall Street Journal.