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 : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ilaine who wrote (5216)	11/11/2005 7:46:59 PM
From: rich evans	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 543061

I guess it depends on what standard of evidence you wish to use and take action on. You use the word "discredited". Does that mean no evidence, a scintilla, some, substantial, a preponderance, clear-cogent-and convincing, no reasonable minds could differ, or beyond any reasonable doubt? And of course Bush and his group never said Iraq and AQ were operating together. They used the words "terrorists". Anslam -al-Islam had their bases in Northern Iraq and were considered affliated with AQ. Germany arrested and deported the two MI14-Iraqi intelligence-embassy officials for meeting with AQ types, Zarqawi was given safe haven and medical care.Abu Nidal was in Iraq. Indonesians reported meetings between MI 14 and AQ , and Czechs reported meetings between Iraq MI 14 and Atta. Some of this has been confirmed by Iraq documents since found and reviewed.Everyone agrees Saddam was supporting with $25000 Pal suicide bombers. Ok so what does it all mean? There is some evidence of cooperation with AQ or its affliates. What level of evidence should one act on as president of US whose primary mission is to protect the Country and People. Ask FDR I guess. In war , I would submit we bomb and attack on a lower standard of evidence then in a criminal trial or even civil trial. Substantial evidence standard seems appropriate. What do you think? Rich

To: Ilaine who wrote (5216)	11/13/2005 2:12:39 PM
From: Sully-	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 543061

That's odd. My post didn't mention Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi. It mentioned MICHAEL SCHEUER, the first head of the CIA's bin Laden unit. He wrote a book in 2002 that had bin Laden in bed with Saddam. It also was clear about Saddam's WMD's & WMD programs that Bush allegedly lied about at that time. Oh, if Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi was "Totally discredited" in "Late 2001 - early 2002" as ionesco alleged, CIA Director George Tenet didn't get the memo. See link below. Message 21861652