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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: longnshort who wrote (344654)	7/28/2007 3:59:43 PM
From: Thomas M.	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 1572383

Look, my point is that Bush told a lie. You're trying to distract from that by raising the larger issue. But the larger issue from this Niger situation is the opposite of what you claim: it proves that Saddam was NOT a thread. Just a weak attempt to establish ties with a country that happens to have one of thousands of the tools for nuclear weapons drew major red flags from the West. As it turns out, we immediately knew about it. And as it turns out, he had no chance to get uranium from Niger. Conclusion: the Niger incident proves that Saddam was no threat to get nukes, thus the inspectors had plenty of time to work, thus no rationale for war. Thus, the case showed the exact opposite of what Bush claimed, so he was being mendacious. But that is not my point. My point is that Bush told a concrete, proveable, impeachable, convictable lie. Tom