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.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ann Corrigan who wrote (232961)	3/2/2002 12:49:36 PM
From: George Coyne	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

Thank you for your perceptive post. It's wonderful when we can begin to be seen as independent thinkers rather than as slaves to pre-packaged rhetoric. I'm not so sure that Gore and the Dems would have been totally inept in response to terrorism, but your supposition is certainly plausible. We would surely have been mired in indecision.

To: Ann Corrigan who wrote (232961)	3/2/2002 1:11:27 PM
From: Mr. Whist	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

Re: "The Congressional Democrats recently decided to launch an attack on the President's anti-terrorism policies in order to try to win upcoming elections. It won't work & will backfire on them causing them to lose more seats." This is deeper than just partisan politics, Ann. Read on. (Any typos are mine. I typed in the story. Did not see it on the paper's Web site this morning.) From Friday's 3/1/02 Cincinnati Post newspaper: Headline: Bunning miffed at war's failures/Anger stems from Taliban's flight By Michael Collins Post Washington Bureau WASHINGTON -- U.S. Sen. Jim Bunning, R-Ky., is known as a die-hard conservative who seldom strays from the Republican Party fold, but lately he has stood apart from his GOP colleagues on a particularly sensitive issue. He has begun to openly question why the United States hasn't achieved its primary goal in the war on terrorism. At a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing last month, Bunning pointedly asked Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and other leaders of the war effort how key members of al-Quaida and the Taliban managed to escape from Afghanistan. "I'm not pleased, and I don't think any Americans are pleased, that we haven't done a better job on al-Quaida," Bunning said. He reitered those concerns during an interview Thursday. Bunning praised the military -- which he said has performed at 99 percent efficiency -- and the overall war effort. "I guess our military didn't expect the exodus -- they thought they would stand and fight to the death, as is the Taliban and al-Qaida motto. When they didn't fight to the death and ran, I don't think we were ready for that." Bunning said the military should have been more alert along the borders of Afghanistan and made better use of electronic surveillance equipment to spot those fleeing to Pakistan or other countries." "We had the satellite capability of doing that," he said. But because of lax surveillance, "we obviously lost some very key members" of al-Qaida and the Taliban, he said. Bunning isn't the only member of Congress who is asking hard questions on the subject. This week, Senate Democratic Leader Tom Daschle of South Dakota and Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W. Va., both questioned whether more resources should be committed to the war effort until the Bush administration explains where the anti-terrorism campaign is headed. Daschle said unless Osama bin Laden and other key leaders of al-Qaida are captured, the war will have failed. But Bunning's remarks stand out because he is the only Republican who has openly questioned how the war is being carried out, said Loren Thompson of the Lexington Institute, a conservative think tank based in Alexandria, Va. "I think Bunning, like a lot of hardliners, is more concerned with results than he is concerned with Republican loyalty." Though Bunning's remarks set him apart from most Republicans, he is asking the same question that many other Americans are asking, Thompson said. "This war was originally cast in very personal terms -- about Osama bin Laden," Thompson said. "Most of the al-Qaida leadership, not just Osama, is unaccounted for. The head of the Taliban government is unaccounted for. I guess many of us have the impression that unless these people are found and captured or killed, there's going to be more terrorism in the future." Other Republicans may have similar concerns but are keeping silent "because it's embarrassing," Thompson said. "The No. 1 objective of the war appears not to have been achieved." GOP leaders have castigated Democrats who have questioned aspects of the war effort. House Republican Whip Tom DeLay of Texas issued a one-word response to Daschle's remarks: "Disgusting."

To: Ann Corrigan who wrote (232961)	3/2/2002 1:41:38 PM
From: Selectric II	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

Well said, Ann. If Al Qaeda is smart, they'll just sit back and watch us fight among ourselves to the death over how to fight them. Does the left really think our enemies are not watching our own debates and moves in order to plan their own actions? Daschole and some other armchair generals don't understand that the military is not geared towards singling out individuals for capture -- that's what police forces do, and sometimes it takes the police years to find "most wanted" criminals, even here, where they're not being given shelter. If it was so easy for our military to "get" bin Laden, why has Clinton been so defensive about his alleged -- and failed -- attempts to do so, at a time when bin Laden and Omar weren't even on the run and hiding?

To: Ann Corrigan who wrote (232961)	3/2/2002 1:50:30 PM
From: bonnuss_in_austin	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

Ann: What is it that you like about the Republican party? No sarcasm intended. I can't figure out how and why middle class 'Amercians' (US) find Republican interests beneficial to them. Personally. As taxpaying citizens, in the rhetorical. bia

To: Ann Corrigan who wrote (232961)	3/2/2002 6:51:55 PM
From: rich4eagle	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769667

Here is where we totally differ, and your assumptions are wrong. You said I criticized the administrations actions against terrorism. I said that the current philiosophy (ie using exterminating terrorism as justification for an outlandish military buildup and sabre rattling against other nations) will lead to spending us broke and being hated. This is not mention using it as an excuse to enact George Orwells 1984. You assume that terrorism is the only this Admin is fighting. Additionally, your nasty remarks about democrats are way out of line. If the democrats were in power Bin Laden and Omar would already be dead. So far the closest leader to killing Bin Laden was Clinton and he missed by minutes without expending all of our resourses and destroying a country in the process. Additionally, what gives you the right to think that Democrats are incapable of waging war. Of the last three major wars this country embarked, a Democrat won one tied one and a Republican lost one. In a psuedo war against Iraq a Republican didn't finish the job. So if history is example we ought to have a Democrat in power if we want to win conflicts. The worst part of your post is the notion that Americans ought not to express their opinion and just blindly follow your leader. The basis of this country and the total principle for which it stands is freedom and the PILLAR OF FREEDOM IS FREEDOM OF SPEECH. Versus censorship and police states. The Democrats have every right to ask what the end game and objectives are especially when the one asking is fourth in power in the US.