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: bentway who wrote (466877)	3/27/2009 3:51:48 PM
From: michael97123	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1572941

Saddam, though neutered then, was always a potential threat. Gore would have had the same intel as bush, brits etc re:WMDs. He would have dismissed the more exotic ones cheney pushed but chemicals, biologicals and soviet era nukes seemed plausible back then to all parties. And saddam passing these weapons to terrorists did make sense given his nature and his enemies in the world (us). Iraq is a better place now without saddam and i would maintain if gore had done it, it would be even better because more effectively done and with less of the ideology and rhetoric.

To: bentway who wrote (466877)	3/27/2009 7:53:47 PM
From: Brumar89	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1572941

Gore assured the Iraqi National Congress on June 28, 2000 that the US was committed to Saddam's overthrow. Gore speech to the Council on Foreign Relations, Feb. 12, 2002: "There are still governments that could bring us great harm. And there is a clear case that one of these governments in particular represents a virulent threat in a class by itself: Iraq." "As far as I am concerned, a final reckoning with that government should be on the table. To my way of thinking, the real question is not the principle of the thing, but of making sure that this time we will finish the matter on our terms."