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: Nadine Carroll who wrote (219270)	2/18/2007 5:20:54 PM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

They had good reason to slime the Iraqi exiles since some of them were agents of Iran. Right? guardian.co.uk Of course it could just be a "grudge"- but they claim to have evidence. I guess we wait and see if it's hard evidence, or if it's yellow cake. As for the war estimates- have you not read Fiasco? nice summation there realcities.com this mentions both CIA and pentagon concerns with the war planning- for the invasion and the aftermath. What I took away from Fiasco was that there was a very good plan for an Iraqi invasion which was a hold over from Bush senior's time. Unfortunately it planned for a lot more men than the Bush admin wanted to use. As I recall from Fiasco, that plan was scrapped, and a series of new plans were made up- first in one organization, then in another. It was clear the plans were hasty, and poorly thought out, but warnings about the plans (see the article above) were ignored. Some of the warnings came from the CIA, but the pentagon and the Army War college and various military people also chimed in. They were ignored. You might find Fiasco interesting. You'd probably disagree with the conclusions, but the evidence in it, and the timelines, and the history, would interest you.

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (219270)	2/18/2007 5:40:48 PM
From: Win Smith	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

The whole "Plamegate" affair is only intelligible as a very successful and not so covert action against the Bush White in general and Dick Cheney in particular. Of course, that's the only possible way it could be interpreted. And Israel never wanted W to start a war in Iraq either, right, Nadine? I'm sure you'll have an "intellectually honest" reply. After the year or so of prewar BS, followed by the 3 years of post-mission-accomplished BS, one might think that W's flacks might show a little restraint on flinging more of it out, but one would , apparently, be guilty of incorrect thought on that.

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (219270)	2/18/2007 5:41:54 PM
From: Mary Cluney	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

One is the argument for the need for war in the first place, which rests on weighing the costs of war against the costs of inaction. I don't remember the Bush administration calculation on how much the war was going to cost versus the cost of inaction. If they made an honest assessment for the need to go to war and had an honest budget (no matter how much), you would have something to stand on, but as it stands, I would think that this administration has blown all chances for your objectives to be met. I would think that you have good reason to be upset with this administration. Your continued support of this administration is perplexing.