Bill Clinton Scandal - SANITY CHECK 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 : Bill Clinton Scandal - SANITY CHECK

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: pezz who wrote (1441)	9/2/1998 6:54:00 PM
From: j_b	Read Replies (1) of 67261

pezz - re IBD's editorial stance: I'm sure you noticed my caveat regarding the leanings of the editorials. Also notice that I didn't label this an "article" but an editorial. That being said, that doesn't make the content inaccurate. Much of what is now being told in the "liberal press" was first published in conservative rags or discussed on conservative talk radio, etc. << at least part of the attack was indeed retaliation for the embassy bombings.>> That may be, but it does constitute a major change in U.S. policy, from pursuing terrorists through the court systems or displaying our proof to the world (ala Reagan with Libya) to pursuing a "war" against terrorists. A change with the obvious potential for loss of innocent lives (ours, from the retaliation) and the probability of loss of U.S. stature worldwide (allies have never supported this type of strike - i.s. no notification to or approval from the allies) should have been made with more thought, better targets and stronger proof. There was no need to rush. Apparently, there was no meeting of the terrorists, and there may have been no nerve gas being produced.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next