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: Tenchusatsu who wrote (258038)	11/2/2005 11:40:08 AM
From: bentway	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1573738

"Democrats who believed them can also be convicted with "circumstantial evidence"?" They were the conned. The chimpistration put together the conning portfolio of cheesy intel with the caveats REMOVED. YOU were one of the conned. To have it proved would be embarrasing, wouldn't it? Many of us on these threads KNEW Saddam Hussein was no threat. Go back down the memory hole and check it out. The con was so TRANSPARENT! It AMAZED me that America bought it. I'm sure a lot of Dems didn't really buy it either, but the alternative was to be branded a traitor by the chimpistration in the wake of 9/11. A club the chimpistration used on the spineless Dems and the spineless press. "The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders...tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger." ~Herman Goering

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (258038)	11/2/2005 12:44:52 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1573738

Al, if this was a court case, the circumstantial evidence that bush and his team "wagged the dog" would be overwhelming enough to convict them.... No it wouldn't, Al. Lots of CIA agents were convinced that Iraq did have WMD. Lots of Democrats as well were convinced of that notion. You're telling me that those CIA agents and the Democrats who believed them can also be convicted with "circumstantial evidence"? That's not true. The CIA told Bush that their info was questionable. Apparently, Clinton believed it from when he was president but those Dems who followed Bush did so because of the nonsense Bush fed them. Bottomline: we knew that 95% of Iraq's WMDs had been destroyed. Frix thought all of them had been destroyed but wasn't positive. That's why he wanted to go back in and look. As soon as he went in and before he could come to any conclusion, Bush upped the war drums. Why? Because he was afraid of what Frix would find; that is no WMDs, and Bush wanted to go to war against Iraq.........desperately. You need to ask yourself why. If Reid gets his way, I think the truth will finally come out!

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (258038)	11/2/2005 2:17:13 PM
From: Alighieri	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1573738

No it wouldn't, Al. Lots of CIA agents were convinced that Iraq did have WMD. Lots of Democrats as well were convinced of that notion. You're telling me that those CIA agents and the Democrats who believed them can also be convicted with "circumstantial evidence"? I think it would take too long to bring you around, particularly when you are not disposed to be open minded. Let's make it easy...even if bush, the dems, clinton, believed that there were WMDs, you didn't see any of them, except for bush and hos minions, exagerating the case in the public eye as they did, none of them used language like "mushroom clouds over our cities", or assert with absolute certainty that "we know exactly where the WMDs are (rumsfeld), or that " we know now that iraq has reconstituted its nuclear program (cheney)...or cite bogus evidence about yellow cake purchases, and repeat these things ad nauseatum, despite words of caution from all sides (wilson, scowcroft, the UN, blix, baradei, even the CIA). Wake up man...un-smell the partisan roses. Al