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 : President Barack Obama -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: ChinuSFO who wrote (142376)	3/9/2014 12:26:37 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 149317

>> So where are they? A "lie" implies, actually requires, an intent to deceive. This is distinguished from a "mistake". Given that all of the available intelligence strongly suggested the existence of WMDs and that pretty much every Democrat believed, on that basis of that intelligence, that the WMDs existed, one cannot reasonably conclude that it was a "lie". Even Hans Blix wrote in his book on the subject that HE believed they had WMDs. The claim that it was a "lie" reflects the most extremely cynical, conspiracy theorists' view imaginable. If one chooses to be rational about it, there is plenty of information available today to support the notion that the Iraq War was the correct action to have taken, in retrospect. While the WMDs weren't found, there is substantial, convincing evidence they were relocated to Syria -- which the ISG could never disprove. A lot of the "lie" mantra was based on the procurement of 60,000 aluminum tubes which later, it was "determined" were not destined for centrifuge production. But there are problems with this claim as well. The specifications for the tubes were such that (a) they where specifically banned from importation to Iraq because their specifications were such that they could be used for nuclear centrifuges, and (b) no one could ever show conclusively that this was not the intended application. In fact, the determination that they weren't destined for nuclear application was based on not being able to find evidence of procurement of other centrifuge components (which doesn't in any way suggest that such procurement hadn't occurred, wouldn't have occurred, or simply went undetected). Now, many continue to use the term "lie" because it suits their political purposes, and that's fine with me. But it does suggest ignorance of the facts and an intentional disregard for the truth. If a person wants to be saddled with that, fine. But I would suggest it furthers no cause and does reflect poorly upon oneself to use the term when clearly it has no basis in fact. It could be just out of ignorance gained from watching the wrong news channel or reading the wrong sources. Or it could reflect an intentional disregard of the truth. Neither of these is a desirable trait imo.