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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: E. T. who wrote (639301)	10/6/2004 10:20:47 AM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

There was a reasonable fear that Iraq would turn over some of its most lethal material to proxies in order to attack the United States. That went along with the threats that Saddam had made at the time of the first Gulf War. Of course Iraq was not a direct military threat. That is not the spector we had to deal with at that point. In fact, stockpiles were irrelevant to the kind of concern that the Administration harbored over the threat posed by Iraq. In the end, the only way of assuring that Iraq was not such a threat was to move on it. Otherwise, we would have to wait until sarin had been dumped in the New York subway, or a dirty bomb had spread radioactive fallout over the crowd in Times Square at New Years, or whatever, before we could even begin to investigate for links to Iraq, and then, it is difficult to establish links of that kind, so it is likely that further outrages would have to follow to accummulate evidence. Incidentally, we would remove a major security commitment, in the long run, by not having to contain Iraq, and an ongoing regional threat, and we would have liberated those whom we had encouraged to rise up at the end of the first Gulf War, only to see them cut down by Saddam. No, Iraq was definitely the right place to strike.