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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (30633)	5/24/2002 4:28:42 PM
From: tekboy	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

It almost sounds as if State and the Pentagon are in one faction, and the Bush administration in another. add the CIA and the professional NSC staff to the first camp and you might be on to something... :0) tb@revengeofthenerds.com

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (30633)	5/24/2002 5:42:05 PM
From: John Carragher	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Its one plan Franks put on the table. and it might be worst case. It may also be put on the table to take some pressure off Bush so he can refer to plan and needs to postpone until next year. More will probably come out on Sunday talk shows.

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (30633)	5/24/2002 5:54:38 PM
From: Win Smith	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

State and the Pentagon are in one faction, and the Bush administration in another If you define "the Bush administration" as Paul Wolfowitz, I guess it works out that way. I'm sure the phone lines to the bloviating pundits are burning up right now trying to figure out how to spin this another way, though.

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (30633)	5/24/2002 6:27:46 PM
From: Ilaine	Respond to of 281500

When discussing military campaigns, the words the military likes are "clear-cut military objective." The words they don't like are "quagmire" and "tar baby."

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (30633)	5/24/2002 7:58:57 PM
From: JohnM	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Military Bids to Postpone Iraq Invasion Joint Chiefs See Progress In Swaying Bush, Pentagon 's c After thinking about the Post article for a while, it seems a bit more complicated. Its source is clearly in or close to the Joint Chiefs. Why would they do so? Usually the purpose of these leaks is to influence a policy debate one way or the other. How could this leak fit into that. The story is written as if the Joint Chiefs have made their point and that's that. But that would not explain the leak. Unless, to take it one step deeper into the leaker layers, it's leaked by some place in the bureaucracy that lost the argument to the Chiefs and, by leaking it, wishes to force the Bush administration to publicly disown the leak and thus push them back a bit closer to the invasion argument. Interesting event.