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: greenspirit who wrote (172659)	10/17/2005 12:05:05 PM
From: jttmab	Respond to of 281500

I could go through each one of those, but generally they are dated, for example the weapons inspections had started up again and the inspection team found no evidence of any programs or stockpiles. The so-called evidence that the Bush Administration provided to the UN all proved to be wrong about what Saddam currently had prior to the war. The Niger letter was a forgery, pictures of van claimed to be chemical vans were bogus. Everywhere we told the UN to look, there was nothing to be found. We looked at alcohol production facilities and found alcohol, not WMD. When all your "evidence" turns out to be false, it's a no-brainer to figure out that maybe your intelligence isn't what you thought it was. So it really doesn't matter what anyone said prior to the war. What mattered was that before the war they were increasingly shown to be wrong. There's a big difference between saber rattling and actually committing forces. IMO, the standard has to be significantly higher. You had better "know" what your facts are and be able to prove it. If Rumsfeld says he knows exactly where the WMD are, he better damned well know exactly where they are before you start taking lives. Taking thousands of lives and going "ooops, no big deal" doesn't hack it with me. jttmab