PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH 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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: SecularBull who wrote (430611)	7/22/2003 12:00:26 AM
From: cnyndwllr	Read Replies (1) of 769667

As you will recall, I once asked the following questions: "I haven't followed this thread for long but I'm curious; are there ANY pro-Bush admin posters here that will actually make a rational and well-thought out response to the important issues? Virtually every one of the "conservative" posters has seemed to often rely on bald-faced, emphatic conclusions to "support" their views, as if they believe that the strength of their assertions will end the discussion." Now you respond by a post that, in its entirety states: "The war on terror has a longer time horizon. Saddam would have only become more dangerous with more time." Why should anyone accept that conclusion? Is it enough that you said it? Do you have any facts or in depth reasoning to support that conclusion? Or are you just cheerleading the Bush admin? The fact is that the Bush admin. has conceded that Saddam had gotten progressively weaker since the 1991 war and that the best intelligence estimates immediately prior to our invasion were that unless we put his back to the wall, Saddam was not likely to target us or aid any terrorists that targeted us. In short, I find your unsubstantiated CONCLUSIONS less than convincing.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next