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: Cogito who wrote (75881)	4/26/2006 10:51:57 PM
From: lorne	Respond to of 81568

Allen....."Yes, he was convicted in Jordan after being tried in absentia.".... ___________________________ Allen. Yep...chalabi was convicted and looks like he is going to get unconvicted. Message 22392046

To: Cogito who wrote (75881)	4/26/2006 11:02:04 PM
From: lorne	Respond to of 81568

Allen....."Sure, there is corruption on both sides of the aisle. Yet I do think there's a difference in degree between Bush promoting Chalabi as the leader of Iraq and Clinton being involved in a campaign event with a guy who later turns out to be a con artist. - Allen"..... I was just trying to prove to as that corruption is on both sides but now that you mention it I would think that the Bush administration thought there was a good chance that chalabi would be of some use in post war Iraq so he was not selected for personal monetary gain as was the case with clinton and Peter Paul and also Marc Rich. I think Chalabi is still involved in the new Iraqi government so the bush administration could turn out to have been correct. So yes there certainly is a difference. Do you think clinton was unaware of who or what Peter Paul was? The president of the USA not knowing when he is dealing with a known felon....could be but I find that very hard to believe.