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 : Just the Facts, Ma'am: A Compendium of Liberal Fiction -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jim S who wrote (53128)	11/7/2006 6:03:20 PM
From: Cogito	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 90947

>>"...The reason the Bush Administration isn't beating this drum is probably related to the fact that there really isn't plenty of evidence that there were WMDs..." That may be the case, Allen. Or, it may be that some clear evidence DOES exist, but it's classified for some deeper reason.<< Jim - Yes, that is possible. If there was evidence that was classified, none of us here would know about it. But what some people on this thread have been saying is that there IS definitive proof. They told me that my view that such proof hasn't been made known is not based on reality, and was only unsubstantiated opinion. They then referred me to the ISG report and the Senate Intelligence Committe report and the Butler report. None of those documents present proof Saddam had WMD. Indeed they say, in essence, that he did not, and that the Intelligence reports claiming he did were inaccurate. If you or they want to believe that Saddam did have stockpiles of WMDs, and that the evidence for that has been suppressed, go ahead. But that belief would basically be an opinion, not a fact. By the way, if the Bush Administration believes the WMDs were transferred to Syria, a country which openly supports Hezbollah, they don't seem to be doing much about it. My theory is that they don't believe that story. - Allen