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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Murrey Walker who wrote (169764)	6/13/2006 6:33:35 PM
From: D. Long	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793895

Bush and company did exactly this And Tenet said the case was "slam dunk". The Senate concluded there was no political pressure on intelligence conclusions, and if you read the Senate report CB cited it is clear that the only ones really doubting that Iraq was shopping around for uranium was the State guys. On page 52 or thereabouts it says the CIA, DIA and other guys were all in agreement. Where's the cherry picking? The intelligence agencies screwed up, but it looks more like it was a consensus screw up with a few dissenters, outvoted. That's not cherry picking, that's believing consensus conclusions and not believing the dissenter. Just because one guy disagrees, but you are not persuaded, doesn't mean you are acting in bad faith to arrive at pre-conceived conclusions. CIA downplayed the British White Paper that said Iraq was seeking uranium in Niger. They could have cherry-picked that, but didn't. And when that bit of info got cleared, by CIA, for inclusion in the POTUS speech, Tenet said it was a mistake. There's plenty of blame to throw at CIA, but cherry picking isn't one of them, IMO. Derek

To: Murrey Walker who wrote (169764)	6/14/2006 11:00:18 AM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793895

how is that any different than you arguing a case before the bench when you're not sure of the outcome? You will use all means you deem necessary to prove your point. Isn't that human nature? Wrong. You can't speculate in court. You can't use "maybe", "might", or "perhaps." You can only use hard facts. People may interpret the same facts differently, or have different opinions as to the facts, but they must believe what they're saying to be factually accurate. Bush and company did exactly this. Yes, we agree on this. They used "may", "maybe", "might", "perhaps", and other speculation, but they presented it as hard, cold facts sufficient to garner support for something new in American history, attacking a country that had never attacked us and wasn't attacking anybody else at the time. I don't think we'll have another pre-emptive war any time soon, if ever. Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.