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 : Don't Blame Me, I Voted For Kerry -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dan B. who wrote (71097)	11/30/2005 12:29:26 PM
From: Orcastraiter	Respond to of 81568

Dan, your mix of facts in your soup shows no proof of collaboration between Saddam and Al Qaeda. And here you state it plain as day: I've acknowledged too many times that the commission and the CIA have said they didn't find proof of collaboration with Iraq in 9/11. But then you go on about absence of evidence...is not evidence of absence. I won't dispute that, but at the same time absence of evidence is certainly not evidence of presence either. Then you say: A member of Iraqi intelligence attended the so-called "911 summit" in Spain, a week before the attacks. OK, this sounds like it could be evidence. What did the CIA say about this alleged meeting? First I have heard about it. We've heard the Vice President exclaim that Atta met with Iraqi Intelligence in Prauge...but the CIA has said that meeting likely did not occur, as Atta was in the US at the time. Iraq harbored for near a decade a fellow behind the first WTC attack. The CIA knew of this, and yet they still said no collaboration with Al Qaeda. Clinton attacked a so-called milk plant, but as he would hope, we found VX nerve gas in the soil there after the bombing. Funny, the "milk plant" manager had been phoning the head of Iraqi chemical weapons development during those times. This is certainly no evidence of collaboration with Al Qaeda. Ahhh, well....but just because a president is aware of the above information, and more, I guess he's not allowed to feel Iraq is an ally of Al Qaeda. The President is not allowed to FEEL stuff and then go to war based on a feeling. That's why we have a CIA, to examine intelligence, vet it, and then report on the facts...not feelings. No matter that he's not alone in feeling that way, no matter that Al Qaeda fights in Iraq today Feelings....wo wo wo...feelings...uh, What about the facts? There is anecdoctal evidence of foreign fighters in Iraq today. But they were not there before the invasion. There presence is now possible because of the vacuum created by the invasion. By the fact that you can't control a country the size of California with 140,000 troops and secure the border and the weapons dumps. I'll allow that there may be Al Qaeda in side Iraq today, although evidence of it is scant. Military estimates are that the insurgency may include 4 to 10% foreign fighters. Of those, some may be affiliated with Al Qaeda. But....I mean BUT...this is not evidence of collaboration with Saddam...unless they are visiting him in his prison cell. If Al Qaeda is in Iraq TODAY, then it's not because of a collaboration with Saddam. The president's statement is NOT supported by activity after the fact. The fact remains that Bush lied when he said during the Mission Accomplished speech, "we have removed an ally of Al Qaeda" It remains a lie untill there is concrete evidence supporting that alleged fact. To date no evidence has been shown. In fact all evidence points to the opposite, and this according to the CIA. Feelings don't count, because if the president had a feeling about it then he should have said, "we feel we have removed an ally of Al Qaeda". That would have been a truthful statement...but that is not what he said. He stated a fact for which no evidence existed. That my friend is a lie. Ergo, Bush is a liar. Orca