SI
SI
discoversearch

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.
Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!!

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: jlallen who wrote (90561)12/3/2004 11:43:24 AM
From: epicure  Read Replies (1) of 108807
 
You are wrong. I didn't call for his head because of 9/11, and I wouldn't have called for it afterwards- save for the fact that he went off against an enemy that originally had nothing to do with terrorists working against us, and now looks to be on its way to becoming another Iranian style mullah-ocracy.

The fact is Iraq had noting to do with 9/11 and therefore another "attack" has nothing to do with it. You seem to think that because Bush imagined there was a connection, this makes the war "ok". What this makes the way is a "mistake".

Telling me that Bush needed to invade because if there had been another attack (from Al Qaeda?) people like me would have blamed him, is silly- since I've been saying from the outset Al Qaeda had nothing to do with Saddam, I would never have blamed bush for not taking out Saddam to get to Al Qaeda. I might have blamed him for not inspecting container freight more seriously. I might have blamed him for not taking the Mexico US border more seriously (since I think that container frieght and our Southern border are our greatest weak points) but I would never have blamed him for not taking out Saddam. Nope.

Logically your argument just doesn't work. I don't turn on my heel wrt my positions.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext