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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: KLP who wrote (107359)	4/2/2005 8:45:17 PM
From: JohnM	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793820

Can't agree with that, John. Actually, it's not clear, Karen, what you don't agree with. I'll just take it that you disagree with all of it. The line of conversation is about the presence or absence of wmds in Iraq before the invasion and the fact there was an argument within the administration as to the strength of the evidence supporting the claim of their presence. That's been well established. Such an argument did take place. The members of the administration who were hot to go into Iraq ignored the claims that the evidence was slim, at best. That's also well established. The point that gets contentious is the degree to which these same administration members actually bent the intelligence to support their desires to invade Iraq. We won't know the answer to that one until well after the Bush administration is a thing of the past. And we won't know because Senator Roberts broke a deal with Senator Rockefeller to complete that analysis and because Laurence Silberman did the expected trip on Chuck Robb. But, it'll all eventually come out.