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: Sam who wrote (223583)	3/11/2007 2:57:20 PM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

It's going to be interesting to see what other material creeps out over the next two years. If we get many more stories like "the FBI broke the law, and gee we're sorry", I'd say the republicans are toast :-) I like toast.

To: Sam who wrote (223583)	3/11/2007 4:18:27 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Was Lyndon Johnson "legally entitled" to fabricate Gulf of Tonkin attacks? No. But they worked well, since they were kept secret for many years. But there is no similarity between the Gulf of Tonkin and Bush's WMD theory. No matter how Machiavellian you believe the administration was, it just makes NO sense to put forth as the prime casus belli a cause which could get publicly exploded almost instantly. No, no. That's not you do it. You put forth some incident that you can keep control of, just like the Gulf of Tonkin attacks. No exposure, no embarrassment. Bush believed in Saddam's WMDs because the CIA believed in them and told him so. The CIA believed in them because the British, French and Germans believed in them. The British, French and Germans believed in them because Iraqis believed in them and because Saddam could have gotten the sanctions lifted easily if he had cooperated with the weapons inspectors, but instead he threw them out and generally acted guilty. Who could believe that he was crazy enough to pay literally 100s of billions of dollars to promulgate a fiction? and in the end, pay with his own life? This example is exactly the reason that rational people who don't support the Bush administration should believe that they weren't lying about WMDs; they were honestly speaking as they believed. But much of the left just seems incapable of weighing evidence; they just go with their feelings. They hate Bush so much, so he must have been lying. Since he must have been lying, his policies must be a crime - somehow or other.