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: stockman_scott who wrote (140112)	7/13/2004 11:31:15 AM
From: Sun Tzu	Respond to of 281500

Now this is a finely crafted piece of propaganda. NYT always takes the "as a matter of fact" tone and adds enough truth to make their lies seem believable. Take a look at this part for example: Let's face it, it would have taken an overwhelming body of evidence for any reasonable person in 2002 to think that Saddam Hussein did not possess stockpiles of chemical and biological agents. Admittedly, the intelligence community was too quick to believe the Iraqi exiles who told stories about mobile biological weapons laboratories and the like. Says who? There were plenty of people who thought otherwise, starting with the UN inspectors on the ground. They did not find anything so it stood to reason there was little if anything left. Furthermore, there was absolutely no indications whatsoever that Saddam had delivery mechanisms to use a WMD even if he had one. Then there is: But the basic facts still suggested strongly that Iraq had plenty of weapons of mass destruction. Really which facts are those? I have not heard of any. And even if we agree with NYT that "The United Nations and most European and Middle Eastern intelligence outfits had the same incorrect beliefs as our agencies", which is highly debatable, that is just an opinion and not a fact. > ...for the same understandable reasons. What reasons?! This reminds me of a student who states some theorems, writes "it is intuitively obvious" and jumps to the conclusions. > It is only on the nuclear question — admittedly a very important one — that the Central Intelligence Agency and other agencies truly dropped the ball. What a load of crock! CIA verified Saeed had been lying 9 months before White House used his "report". In addition, the Senate report indicates plenty of misinformation coming from someone code named "Curveball" who was none other than Chalabi's son, a person highly supported by the Neocons. Then there is the matter of Niger report which they claimed came from the Brits. So exactly how much was CIA's responsibility here? I can go on and on, but I think you get the picture. ST

To: stockman_scott who wrote (140112)	7/13/2004 2:28:04 PM
From: Sun Tzu	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

I guess you should tell NYT to talk to David Kay before claiming that "it would have taken an overwhelming body of evidence for any reasonable person in 2002 to think that Saddam Hussein did not possess stockpiles of chemical and biological agents" guardian.co.uk David Kay, the man who led the CIA's postwar effort to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, has called on the Bush administration to "come clean with the American people" and admit it was wrong about the existence of the weapons. ... "I was more worried that we were still sending teams out to search for things that we were increasingly convinced were not there," Mr Kay said.