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: Nadine Carroll who wrote (196921)	2/18/2007 4:55:16 AM
From: Elroy	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 793742

I agree the author is saying that the admin. disregarded loads of evidence, but he is not backing it up with the loads of evidence that were supposedly disregarded, and I get the distinct impression that what we are talking about here is a basic policy difference, not specific intelligence findings presented and then ignored. I agree the author fails to back up his claim, and unless all this intelligence is still classified it would be great if we could see the intelligence that the administration saw, and make our own assessment as to whether they disregarded it or not. But since the Bush admin (and the rest of the world) were wrong about the whole presence WMD thing (:we don't want the warning to come in the form of a mushroom cloud"), it weakens the confidence that I have in Bush's other assessments about the region. I don't believe him that the residents of Gitmo are evil horrible killers that don't deserve a trial. I don't believe him that the Iranian government are actively supporting Iraqi insurgent groups trying to kill Americans. I'm skeptical that 130k troops over 3 years couldn't achieve American goals in Iraq, but 145k will be able to do that. It's sad, but I don't trust the President in many of his claims about Iraq. And I think it is due to his history in that country so far.