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 : I Will Continue to Continue, to Pretend.... -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: RMF who wrote (22852)	9/12/2006 12:51:59 AM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

<< "I guess you guys would like it to be treasonous to say what you think and even more so if what you say is RIGHT." >> You got it 1,000% wrong yet again. Rockefeller's access to intelligence was precisely as indicated in that post. Rockefeller independently received essentially the same intelligence that the Bush Admin received. Rockefeller's past statements are on the record for anyone to see. Rockefeller made stronger statements about the need to remove Saddam than Bush made. Rockefeller made those statements based on the intelligence available at the time. And that intelligence was NOT manipulated by anyone in the Bush Admin - multiple bipartisan investigations have proven that fact repeatedly. Rockefeller now is trying to revise history by intentionally lying. He is falsely accusing the President of lying us into a war. Rockefeller's easily proven lies against the Bush Admin are clearly intentional acts of treachery. The only other possible explanation is that Rockefeller is a certifiable imbecile & pathological liar. You tell me which of the two is most likely to be the case. There is no possibility of any other outcome.

To: RMF who wrote (22852)	9/12/2006 1:13:19 AM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

<< "The U.S. would DEFINITELY be better off if Saddam was still in power and the Iraq war had never happened." >> You know full well this thread is NOT a place to assert unsubstantiated OPINIONS. In this case, you asserted an opinion that clearly does not stand up to any objective review of the facts & credible evidence already thoroughly documented on this thread. Unless you are fully prepared to factually * refute every one the findings of: - the Iraq Survey Group, - the Senate Intelligence Committee, - the Robb Silberman Report, - the Butler Report, - UN Inspections from 1991 through 2003, - the multiple sources documenting the Oil-for-Food fraud, - the multiple sources translating Iraqi documents & other media captured after Saddam's removal, ET AL, I suggest you cease & desist while you are way behind. * That means you link to real facts & credible, independently verifiable evidence to support every assertion you make or challenge. Third party opinions are like a$$holes - everyone got one - so what? They prove absolutely nothing. The same thing goes for your unsubstantiated opinions. And NO CHERRY PICKING! Do NOT withhold contrary evidence from any source you cite. Either present all relevant evidence or do not bother trying.