Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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.

Pastimes : AMAT Off-Topic Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: FiloF who wrote (281)	11/15/2001 4:54:24 PM
From: Jerome	Respond to of 786

>>>Just wondering what Al Gore or Bill Clinton would be doing differently from Bush. <<< Not much....options here are well limited. Bush is playing a cautious hand. Lets see how much co-operation he gets from the other Arab nations when he detects some terrorists on their turf.. Regards, Jerome

To: FiloF who wrote (281)	11/15/2001 5:51:55 PM
From: Cary Salsberg	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 786

The obvious things are the air safety and fiscal stimulus bills. Time is of the essence in both, but Bush can't push bipartisan bills because he is afraid of the Republican right wing. The key to the economy's recovery is the confidence of the American people. I don't think Ashcroft's pronouncements that we are at war to support his moves to set aside civil courts inspires confidence. I don't think that drilling in Alaska is an anti-terrorism move, but the Republican's are pushing that logic. I don't think now is the time to unilaterally reduce our nuclear arsenal. It should be bilateral via negotiations and treaty. The enemy of my enemy is not my friend. Putin and Russia are not our friends. Russian criminality created Bin Laden. The Bush Middle East policy was no policy until the attack and now it is a stupid policy to appease our perceived Arab allies. Again, the enemy of my enemy is not my friend. With respect to the people of Egypt, Syria, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia, Bin Laden might have the moral high ground above those countries leaders. Certainly, he has the support of the people. Bush and Powell are pushing peace talks between Israel and the Palestine Authority, but they completely ignore the Clinton/Barak peace offer and Arafat's rejection of it. Why start talks if the best offer has already been rejected and was seen as a reason to increase the level of violence?