Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices Message Board

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

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: brian1501 who wrote (149287)	8/8/2002 3:12:46 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (3) of 1579776

I would have been fine with him taking out Saddam at that time, but we had accomplished our mission re Kuwait so it wasn't necessary. Regardless, you are trying to deflect the conversation. Not at all......it was Saddam who had invaded Kuwait.......we had every excuse to chase him back to Bagdad. Why did Bush Sr. back off? The simple fact is that Iraq violated the cease-fire which should have caused a resumption of hostilities immediately. This happened on Clinton's watch, and he did nothing. Neither of the Bush presidents would have hesitated to defend our interests. Excuse me.............Bush had the Iraqis on the run; he had the most legitimacy of any president to go into Iraq and take out Saddam. Again, why didn't he? Why did Clinton wuss out? Was he chicken...weak...a loser? Embassy bombings...USS Cole... He was all of the above. He had nice hair and could play the sax though. Well, Bush Sr. didn't have nice hair and probably can't or won't get it up. Yet, he didn't take Saddam out. Why do you refuse to answer my question? Why is Clinton at fault but Bush Sr. is blameless? ted

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next