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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: epicure who wrote (219206)	2/18/2007 4:49:14 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Ok. Sought to purchase, or to be more accurate "caught attempting to purchase". Still wrong, and there were caveats on the data that was used. No, right then, and still right. Britain stands behind it, and even Joe Wilson confirmed it, despite saying just the opposite in the NYT. I think we can agree that the Iraqi officials didn't go to Niger to discuss cowpeas. Tellingly, the CIA has not declassified Wilson's oral debrief to them.

To: epicure who wrote (219206)	2/18/2007 8:29:28 PM
From: Brumar89	Respond to of 281500

Oh the authors of the Downign st memo were mind readers? Since exigency was part of the rational for the cause for war, closeness matters. Cutting it close when nukes are at issue is dangerous. Unless you want to wait till nukes have been used before intervening as you expressed elsewhere. "Accordingly, one can’t simply rely on the intelligence community to set policy, especially when it involves really important issues." So if one doesn't rely on intelligence one relies on...psychics? One's "guts"? Thats a tough question, but we know the official judgment of the intelligence community is deficient. So merely relying on that is reckless. ...if this war is an example of the result of disregarding intelligence, I can't say I think you have yourself a winner of a demo. Well, look at the big picture. Saddam will never use WMD's again as he had, never start a war again as he had ... and as we can reaonably know he would have again if given enough time. Now we have violent disorder within a newly independent country - people blowing up things and killing innocents. I'd say Iraq, though a problem, presents a smaller danger now than then. "Bush didn’t say Iraq “was purchasing uranium ore”, he said he sought to purchase uranium ore:" Ok. Sought to purchase, or to be more accurate "caught attempting to purchase". Still wrong, and there were caveats on the data that was used. But if intelligence doesn't matter, according to you, it's perfectly clear one can use anything. So why even talk about what's sensible to use? I didn't say doesn't matter. I think I said is deficient. Thus judgment has to be used, weighing the risks.