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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: carranza2 who wrote (139197)	7/7/2004 6:43:24 PM
From: maceng2	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

You didn't really keep up with the literature on Saddam, did you? So... the question is... why did the CIA and the USA ever back that guy all the way in the first place? ???????????? I guess I'm looking forward to his trial. Lots to be learned I am sure. Lets hope he gets a fair trial. pb

To: carranza2 who wrote (139197)	7/7/2004 6:52:28 PM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

I did read Pollack's book. I don't happen to agree with Pollack, although Pollack doesn't even always agree with Pollack. If you read this piece by Pollack, you will see his analysis of Saddam's actions regarding WMD's- and why Saddam wasn't more honest about their destruction. Pollack posits some very logical reasons for Saddam's actions- hardly the reasoning of a bizarre decision maker. He also makes a number of statements that make it clear that Saddam was deterrable. Pollack does seem to imply that our intelligence community made some bizarre decisions, and used poor judgment- I happen to agree with him about that: "When the inspectors suddenly left, the various intelligence agencies were caught psychologically and organizationally off balance.they began to trust sources that they would previously have had UNSCOM vet. If a defector came out of Iraq after 1998, the CIA had to gauge his credibility by comparing his account with those of other defectors—who might be unreliable or just unproven—or by checking it against whatever they could glean from satellites and other indirect sources. With so little to go on, intelligence agencies believed many reports that now seem deeply suspect. " theatlantic.com

To: carranza2 who wrote (139197)	7/7/2004 7:12:25 PM
From: Dr. Id	Respond to of 281500

What emerges is a frightening pattern of "bizarre decisions, poor judgment, and catastrophic miscalculations," of deeply dangerous moves made with "no assessment of risks or costs." Is that book about Saddam? Or is it about the star of Michael Moore's new movie? I also suspected that doubya has a personality disorder. I am guessing from what I've read that Saddam Hussein does too. Glad to see that you concur!

To: carranza2 who wrote (139197)	7/7/2004 7:47:16 PM
From: GST	Respond to of 281500

<What emerges is a frightening pattern of "bizarre decisions, poor judgment, and catastrophic miscalculations," of deeply dangerous moves made with "no assessment of risks or costs."> This all sounds remarkably like a famous politician in Washington.