Foreign Affairs Discussion Group 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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Neocon who wrote (127389)	3/26/2004 9:28:09 AM
From: Rascal	Read Replies (2) of 281500

Stipulation: The old Clinton Administration was more fearful/focused/wary of Bin Laden's danger prior to 911 than the new Bush Administration. If this statement is accepted (and let's not waste time arguing about the particulars). Let us assume it is not a faulty premise. Then why would that be so? Why the change from one Administration to the other? Please all you smarties, ponder and answer. Talk among yourselves. This exercise is similar to a scientist proving the existence of a black hole or invisible planet by quantifying the known to uncover the unknown. Why? Why? Why? If the premise is accurate, why would the Bush Administration feel comfortable with ignoring the danger of Bin Ladin? Rascal @CondiKnows&IsAfraidOfTheQuestion.com

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next