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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: i-node who wrote (207258)	10/18/2004 9:45:35 AM
From: Alighieri	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1575615

NO. That ISN'T "fair enough". This intelligence wasn't "received from the Bush administration". The Bush administration had only been in office for 8 months and was working off the intelligence that had been developed over YEARS. The same intelligence Bill Clinton was privy to when he totally supported the war against Iraq. Oh c'mon. The administration pressured it into a predetermined outcome, heard it with a selective ear, removed all the caveats, and then sent surrogates to senate and congressional hearings to spin it, as they did for the american public. Links abound about speeches by bush, cheney, rice, and rumsfeld in which they talk about mushroom clouds without a shred of evidence. They are still doing it. Cheney leading the charge. Al

To: i-node who wrote (207258)	10/18/2004 9:55:25 AM
From: Elroy	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1575615

Then you still haven't explained why Kerry came to the same conclusions on the same intelligence. Yes I did - it wasn't his primary job. He's was a little Senator from Massachusettes. The President of the USA was the President of the USA. I think I had a post earlier stating that Kerry did come to the wrong conclusion on WMDs in Iraq, but his error is less important that Bush's because a)he probably had access to or at least looked at less intelligence than the President, and b) he is not the one that determined to take action based on the incorrect intelligence assessment. Bush did. Kerry's failure in regard to the WMD conclusion is that he was one of 100 incorrect checks in the Senate, and he bears that responsibility. Bush's failure in the WMD assessment is that he lead the country into war based on inaccurate information. There are no circumstances where you could admit you are wrong. Nonsense, if I were wrong I'd admit it. Bush's error in misdiagnosing the WMD situation in Iraq is much worse than Kerry's error in believing Bush, don't you think? What the hell is leadership about, if not taking responsibility for your leadership decisions actions?

To: i-node who wrote (207258)	10/18/2004 10:04:48 AM
From: Elroy	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1575615

Again - the lack of WMDs in Iraq indicates that Bush either is not too smart (he couldn't determine that the available intelligence was inconclusive) or he lied (he didn't care that the available intelligence was inconclusive). Then you still haven't explained why Kerry came to the same conclusions on the same intelligence. I think they both came to the wrong conclusion (obviously), but one of them (George) lead the argument and the other (Kerry) listened and was convinced (probably because he trusted his President to "do the right thing", etc.). -------- Let me ask you this, in your assessment of George's capability as the President of the US, are you a little upset that he took the US into its largest military campaign since Vietnam based on an innaccurate conclusion of available information? I mean, doesn't that make you wonder about the guy's competence......at all? I'm not asking whether you think the invasion was justified (I do too!), and I'm not asking whether you approve of George's policies (obviously you do). But what about George's rationale for war (as presented publicly, i.e., WMDs in Iraq) being completely incorrect? Doesn't it make you question George's competency to lead the free world when his biggest action as leader so far was based on something that was ... well........completely wrong?