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: DuckTapeSunroof who wrote (640324)	10/7/2004 10:17:02 PM
From: DuckTapeSunroof	Respond to of 769670

Bush, Kerry have similar postwar strategies Advisers say troops will have to stay at least a year By Barbara Slavin USA TODAY President Bush says U.S. forces will stay in Iraq as long as necessary but no longer. John Kerry says he wants to bring U.S. troops home but will not “cut and run” before the country is stable. Despite differences over how the United States went to war, either man as president would pursue a similar strategy now, their campaign statements show. The strategy involves building up Iraq's security forces, seeking foreign help and keeping U.S. troops there until the country is more stable. “My impression is that both the candidates have more or less the same plan,” Paul Bremer, the former U.S. administrator in Iraq, said this week. Ultimately, events that are outside the U.S. government's control may determine whether and for how long U.S. forces remain. Among the scenarios: •Iraqi forces become capable of safeguarding their nation, allowing for a gradual withdrawal of U.S. forces, which now number 140,000. •Through elections or violence, a government hostile to the United States emerges and demands that America withdraw. •Iraq descends into civil war. “Exit strategies are very clear,” says Anthony Cordesman, a Middle East specialist at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a research organization in Washington. “Civil war or a request to leave.”... usatoday.com

To: DuckTapeSunroof who wrote (640324)	10/7/2004 10:22:11 PM
From: puborectalis	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

Bush administration in denial about lack of Iraq WMD: Kay WASHINGTON, Oct 7 (AFP) - President George W. Bush's administration is in denial over the lack of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq before the US-led invasion in 2003, ex-chief US arms inspector David Kay said Thursday. A report by the Iraq Survey Group that Kay ran until he quit at the start of the year found Iraq had no chemical, biological or nuclear weapons when Bush was saying that Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein was a growing threat. The White House has insisted Saddam was a threat to the United States and had weapons of mass destruction (WMD) capability, but Kay told NBC television: "All I can say is 'denial' is not just a river in Egypt." "The report is scary enough without misrepresenting what it says," he added. Iraq "was not an imminent and growing threat because of its own weapons of mass destruction," he added. "Look, Saddam was delusional. He had a lot of intent. He wanted to be Saladin the Great, of the Middle East yet again. He wanted to put Iraq in a preeminent position to remove the US from the region," Kay added. "He had a lot of intent. He didn't have capabilities. Intent without capabilities is not an imminent threat." "There is the issue that remains as to whether the scientists and engineers living in the chaotic, corrupt situation in Iraq might have transferred individually technology to terrorists," he said. But "that was not the case the administration made." Saddam gave some information to US interrogators which was used for the report, but Kay said "it's not very credible without further collaboration." The survey group produced an interim report in January just before Kay stood down from the US and British group hunting Iraq's alleged WMD program. "There is no difference in terms of major conclusions. We concluded there were no weapons there; that, in fact, he had intentions but no plans; that the capability was seriously eroded; and, in fact, that clandestine procurement had continued with the assistance of countries and companies in violation of UN sanctions," Kay said.