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: Michael Watkins who wrote (147508)	10/10/2004 6:41:30 PM
From: cnyndwllr	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Michael, a couple of "rational" points are worth mentioning. First, during the past months while the Bush "team" has been keeping the idea of eventual wmd discovery alive, including the "mobile biological labs," they had to have known better. During this time they have been getting preliminary information from the Duelfer team to debunk that assertion. It certainly took months to prepare the 15,000 page report. The suggestions that "no one knows" were simply more deceptions. Your discussion of the "cherry picking" of intelligence is valid. The argument that the "whole world believed" he had wmds, overlooks the fact that our CIA is the leading intelligence agency in the world, and that it shares information around the globe. To say that they were trusted around the world and therefor the "world" agreed is simply circular logic. When Powell gets up in front of the U.N. and puts America's credibility on the line, when the Vice President and the President of the U.S. broadcast with CERTAINTY that we KNOW the wmds are in existence, the PRE-Iraq invasion world believed. The more puzzling question is what was the real reason for expending our credibility, for risking the Bush reelection and for engaging in an invasion and occupation that had little chance of success. It must have been based on either an immensly unrealistic and ideological view of the world or on hidden considerations that the world and the voters of this country would not have supported. Incompetence or deceit? Oh, did I forget "all of the above?"