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 : Don't Blame Me, I Voted For Kerry -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: ChinuSFO who wrote (34080)	7/7/2004 4:10:43 PM
From: Wayners	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 81568

Here's a list of other relevant quotes. Message 20287080 The consensus is that at a minimum Saddam was still seeking and persuing WMD. Clinton said post 1998 bombings that they didn't know if they destroyed anything or everything. There seems to be no debate that Saddam as late as 2002 was at a minimum seeking WMD. Clinton and Blair did launch an attack on Iraq in 1998 from the air specifically to destroy WMD. Perhaps those air attacks did indeed destroy it all but then nobody could verify using U-2s and satellite imagery. I suppose Bush could have done the same thing, but the international community has been playing this dangerous game with Saddam since the late 1980s. The dangerous game is that while you believe you have his WMD held in check by air strikes...that you miss something and something gets used against you. 250,000 dead or something worse is the wrong and risky way to discover that oops our air strikes and inspections did not work. The Senate Intelligence Committee and President all had access to the exact same CIA Intelligence assessments and all Democrats and Republicans and Bush included believed those assesssments that Saddam had WMD. Why should Bush be held to a higher standard than Democratic members of the Senate who at the time agreed that Saddam had WMD? Can Congressman and Senators be wrong about WMD using the exact same intelligence information and not be criticized for it while Bush is criticized for all believing it and acting on it? Any one of Bush's critics would at a minimum have bombed Iraq for the umteenth time which IMO is the riskiest way to go because afterwards its impossible to verify if the mission was accomplished.