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 : GOPwinger Lies/Distortions/Omissions/Perversions of Truth -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: J_F_Shepard who wrote (115450)	2/25/2008 12:39:22 PM
From: Lazarus_Long	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 173976

I maintain no such thing. Maybe you do and are confused. I've said repeatedly that if you REALLY looked at the evidence presented at the time of invasion, it was weak at best and it is fair to assume the best evidence it had, considering the pressure it was under. But then I'm sure you favor the genocide in Darfur too.

To: J_F_Shepard who wrote (115450)	2/25/2008 12:59:29 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 173976

"... why didn't he use them?" Shep, answer your own silly question why don't all the other countries that have them use them? He may not have had them but that test is meaningless. youtube.com youtube.com

To: J_F_Shepard who wrote (115450)	2/25/2008 7:00:50 PM
From: Steve Dietrich	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 173976

One reason SH didn't use his alleged WMD is, even if he still had the unaccounted for weapons from the first gulf war and before, they would have been useless. Saddam's WMD's only had a shelf life of 5 years or less. When Bush said we were trying to get SH to comply with UN Resolutions, that was a lie. We were always going to invade, no matter what. For one thing, we wanted to take our troops out of SA and put them somewhere else. The Bush administration decided to put them in Iraq. SD