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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: D. Long who wrote (419822)	4/3/2011 8:35:11 PM
From: LindyBill	Respond to of 793868

Goldstone is still at fault here, but I think better of him than Nadine does. Easiest thing for him to have done was to keep his mouth shut.

To: D. Long who wrote (419822)	4/4/2011 6:07:16 AM
From: Nadine Carroll	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793868

I see. So the presumption was, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, to assume deliberate war crimes were committed by Israel. Just as the presumption was to assume Hamas innocent and practically invisible. Goldstone practically didn't mention Hamas activities. There is one (unintentionally) humorous passage where he asks "the Gaza authorities" (=Hamas) if he can talk to any of the fighters (also=Hamas), and they told him, oh, we don't know those guys. I cut Goldstone no slack for this semi-mea culpa, in which he STILL blames Israel because they didn't cooperate with him. The Israelis didn't cooperate because Goldstone had a 'hanging' mandate from the UN to find Israel guilty of war crimes, evidence be damned. Which is exactly what he did. Goldstone knew exactly what he was doing when he took that mandate. I can only presume that while his UN friends are still saying 'good job' his rep has become a little stinkier than he'd like in other places, so he's trying to walk back the damage he did, just a little. Maybe he's angling for a job with Obama.