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: Steve Dietrich who wrote (480158)	5/12/2009 4:12:12 PM
From: Tenchusatsu	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1572965

SD, > Now that you know the chronology, do you want to revise your position You're right, I did get my timeline mixed up, but not Biden's position on invading Iraq: antiwar.com As Scott Ritter, the former chief UN weapons inspector, noted at the time, "For Sen. Biden's Iraq hearings to be anything more than a political sham used to invoke a modern-day Gulf of Tonkin resolution-equivalent for Iraq, his committee will need to ask hard questions – and demand hard facts – concerning the real nature of the weapons threat posed by Iraq." It soon became apparent that Biden had no intention of doing so. Biden refused to even allow Ritter himself – who knew more about Iraq's WMD capabilities than anyone and would have testified that Iraq had achieved at least qualitative disarmament – to testify. Ironically, on Meet the Press last year, Biden defended his false claims about Iraqi WMDs by insisting that "everyone in the world thought he had them. The weapons inspectors said he had them."

To: Steve Dietrich who wrote (480158)	5/12/2009 4:21:26 PM
From: i-node	2 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1572965

Your remarks are absolutely disingenuous and inconsistent with the facts. Nothing happened between the time of Biden's support of the invasion and the time of the actual invasion that changed his position one iota. In fact, he had supported the invasion of Iraq (as did I) as early as 1998. "In late 2002, Biden took to the Senate floor in support of giving Bush the "option" to use force in Iraq, saying, "I do not believe this is a rush to war. I believe it is a march to peace and security. I believe that failure to overwhelmingly support this resolution is likely to enhance the prospects that war will occur.... [Saddam Hussein] possesses chemical and biological weapons and is seeking nuclear weapons." Liberals at the time were outraged at Biden. How you can claim he didn't support the invasion is beyond me -- you are either very confused or intentionally misleading.