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: Maurice Winn who wrote (155675)	1/9/2005 12:21:47 AM
From: neolib	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Hey, speak for yourself. Interpretation from many sources of information doesn't = clueless. My conclusions were better than the WMD proponents. My apologies. AFAIK, mike, you, GST and I don't have any special, non-public sources of info, such as the US gov. clearly does. You may remember much ado about sources which could not be shared publicly that "clearly" showed the WMD prior to the war. Well, even with more info, they got it wrong. Kind of like being wrong even when you have insider info! It is like stock picking, but kind of like being restricted to only one stock. The makes picking the winners from the losers much more important!

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (155675)	1/9/2005 1:35:18 AM
From: GST	Respond to of 281500

I saw public information that led me to the conclusion that we could not know for sure what Saddam had left over from pre-91 days. I also saw public behavior on the part of the Bush Administration that led me to believe the decision to invade would not be based on the perceived threat of WMD, but rather that the ability to create doubts about WMD would be used as the best available excuse for an invasion. I never saw anything that I would call evidence of an WMD threat -- on that score the emperor was naked. I had no idea whether we would find something here or there in Iraq, but I did have a very clear idea that nothing we would find would come close to justifying an invasion if that invasion was to be justified based on "self-defense". There was just no convincing case made that we had to defend ourselves against Iraq.