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: Neocon who wrote (147727)	10/13/2004 2:24:19 PM
From: Michael Watkins	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Thanks for the speculations masquerading as facts. That is not a retort worthy of you. Its a fact that the administration knew the so-called nuclear smoking gun they used to justify the war with Iraq was completely implausible. The USA's own expert, the guy that builds nuclear centrifuges for the US, said so. And said so in August 2001, before 9/11, long before any decision to invade Iraq was in the public domain. So here's the facts: - own best expert, the guy that builds uranium enrichment facilities for the US, says tubes could not be used for the purpose. Says if they were to be some how used for the purpose, would set the Iraqi nuke program back many years. In the special world of if's and maybe's in intelligence, this is as close to NO WAY as you get. - Condeleeza Rice, years later, says "these tubes could really ONLY be used for nuclear weapons development". - Bush repeats statement, implying in State of Union that its only a matter of time before Saddam nukes US. Sole purpose: sway wavering congress to give him authorization. - On the record: intelligence experts completely familiar with the evidence state publicly that they were shocked that Bush used this evidence to support a false conclusion. Bottom line: The guy that knows what he is talking about says NO WAY and she / Bush / Cheny / Powell says COULD ONLY, IRREFUTABLE, etc. Those are the facts. If you can't trust your own people -- those that know their business -- and then go on to make a decsision 180 degrees to the opposite of what you've been told then what does that make you? Decisive? Or willing to bend the truth for your own purposes? Its the latter, of course. You can claim all you want that its a matter of interpretation but you will a) prove to be on the wrong side of that argument in time and b) simply show that you are totally unwilling to accept anything contrary to your own belief. Eventually it will all come to the surface to the point where even the most blind followers of the Bush administration will be unable to deny the truth. I do speculate that time has arrived. Subtle defections from former and on-the-surface current supporters is always the first sign.