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 (75356)	4/12/2006 10:26:54 AM
From: Orcastraiter	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 81568

Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option. There's no argument there. Anyone that was shaking hands with Rumsfeld and cutting deals with Ronnie, shouldn't be trusted...indeed. Orca

To: Dan B. who wrote (75356)	4/12/2006 11:32:33 AM
From: Cogito	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 81568

Dan - I say that speaking about an "uncooperative Iraq" is revisionism, because Iraq was cooperating more completely than they ever had before. Was it perfect? No. But the situation was improving. When the inspectors were saying that they wanted to have more time to complete the inspections, and that they were "getting access to the sites", I think it would have been prudent to give them that time, despite the fact that cooperation may not have been perfect. Blix said "A great many questions remain". So why wouldn't we try to get those questions answered? >>Then too, we find that "The inspectors say Iraq must produce credible evidence to back up its stance that it destroyed all material that could be used for weapons of mass destruction while U.N. teams were out of the country from 1998 to late last year." In this case, Iraq failed to back-up its claims, we eventually found that Iraq had outright lied, since we in fact found the massive quantities of your "raw materials that could have been used to produce massive amounts of chemical weapons, but could also have been used to make things like insecticides(or fertilizer I believe, as the case may be - Dan B.)<< Did we really find these massive quantities of raw materials? I haven't seen evidence of that. In any case, once again, the inspectors were still in the process of getting information, and should have been allowed to do their jobs. That is what leaving war as the last resort means. You do everything you can to avoid it. Bush didn't do that. I love the line you put in bold, from Bush's State of the Union address, 2003: "Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option." That is a classic straw-man propaganda line. It's a meaningless argument. Nobody, even the most vocal opponents to the war, ever suggested that we trust in Saddam's sanity or restraint. We were enforcing no-fly zones. We had U.N. inspectors on the ground. We had embargoes in place, and more. That is not "trusting in Saddam's sanity". And by the way, who are these people at GlobalSecurity.org, anyway? They claim to be a "reliable source of information" but there's really no indication on their site of who they are or how they acquire their data. - Allen

To: Dan B. who wrote (75356)	4/12/2006 11:43:11 AM
From: Orcastraiter	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 81568

Dan...you need to read this story. Bush said that the best case they had that Saddam was making WMD was the mobile weapons labs...remember? Here's what was going on behind the curtain: washingtonpost.com I hope you will eventually see that making the case for war was the focus of the administration. War is a last resort, not an off the shelf solution. Orca

To: Dan B. who wrote (75356)	4/12/2006 1:11:38 PM
From: American Spirit	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 81568

GW Bush said "We already found them" (WMD) to the Europeran press in Poland right after the invasion. Bush was refering to the mobile labs which the Washington Post writes about today as being completely discredited claims by Bush's own intel experts. Clearly, Bush lied and that statement proves it. Bush also lied in many other ways and Cheney lied even more. Bush-Cheney deliberately withheld solid evidence and juiced-up and released discredited evidence in an attempt to fool not only the UN and American People but congress itself. We know now Bush was planning to invade Iraq even before 9-11 no matter what WMD were found or what Saddam did or didn't do. You call Saddam uncooperative, but for an arrogant blowhard dictator he cooperated a lot. He let the UN inspectors go anywhere they wanted in his country, even the palaces. Of course Saddam was a highly noxious and suspicious character, but Bush never saw any evidence that Saddam had a connection to 9-11, Al Qaida or was actively making or hiding any WMD. Put it all together and your argument for war totally falls apart, especially since Bush-CHeney failed to do the most important thing of all, that is plan for what we do with the country once we take it over. After all, most experts agreed the invasion would be the easy part. Bottomline thoughm lying to congress is grounds for impeachment, and they did it.