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.

Strategies & Market Trends : 2026 TeoTwawKi ... 2032 Darkest Interregnum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: ggersh who wrote (128012)	2/19/2017 3:13:57 PM
From: GPS Info	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 220215

I had been thinking about your earlier comments. Nope wrong premise, it was our government, hence the vote inclusion You were commenting on the responsibility of "our government" for the invasion of Iraq. You suggested that it was the House and Senate and GWB who were (equally?) responsible for the war and the subsequent loss of life: USA, USA, USA, my top 3 picks. 98-0 in the senate, 420-1 in the house In another post, you wrote: Cheney but you didn't mention him Doesn't it bother you how many died attacking a country that didn't attack us? First, I don't understand why you would think that I wouldn't be bothered by the deaths from any war. Anyway, I didn't forget about Cheney -- or Rumsfeld. The reason that I didn't add anyone else was because I was focusing on your previous list of sources which you seemed to discredit: but after WMD's, NYT, Wapo, maybe the Donald has it right, maybe not. -sarc- My point to this comment was that simply because an information source makes a mistake, you shouldn't distrust all previous or future information from that source. If they are open about their mistakes, we can hope that they will be more discerning in future. If they dismiss their errors and falsehoods, then we can move on to other news sources. We shouldn't blindly trust any news source, and we should always reserve some judgement to allow ourselves to consider an opposing viewpoint. Maybe you don't like the CIA because of WMDs, but we should consider benwood's important point: "What I recall from what was said contemporaneously is that the CIA did NOT say WMD, but the WH security team 'reinterpreted' the data. Doesn't mean the CIA isn't culpable for stepping aside if they truly had an alternate view, although they undoubtedly would have been fired for speaking out." I also recall that the CIA had varying degrees of confidence about their intelligence on WMDs, but the Bush administration removed any doubts from whatever they gave to the news outlets. As far as the House and Senate votes for the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002, here is a description from Wikipedia: The resolution "supported" and "encouraged" diplomatic efforts by President George W. Bush to "strictly enforce through the U.N. Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq" and "obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion, and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq." The resolution authorized President Bush to use the Armed Forces of the United States "as he determines to be necessary and appropriate" in order to "defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq." en.wikipedia.org ============================ Finally, this thread started with a joke from The Onion about Trump giving his briefings to the intelligence agencies. I hoped you would conclude that this was ass-backwards, along with other aspects of the Trump administration.