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 : THE SLIGHTLY MODERATED BOXING RING -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dayuhan who wrote (18214)	7/25/2002 2:03:57 PM
From: jlallen	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 21057

Maybe so others. Not me. Reagan made a major blunder in Beirut. No question. I was not "unconcerned" about Iran/Contra. I think Reagan made an error of judgment in that case too. If he had a weakness, it is in that he was too much of a big picture guy who did not get involved in all the details of the machinations of his staff. In any event, one can distinguish a situation where the Chief was not indicted, cooperated with the investigation, turned over his papers, and instructed his staff to follow suit from the Clinton example. I worked for the Feds during the S&L scandal. There is plenty of blame there for both the Exec. and Congress. Congress' interference in the regulatory process was much more of a problem, IMO. I have never said that Bush, Reagan nor any other politician has done no wrong. That's pure baloney. There is also a difference between "partisanship" and the continual posting of libelous and seditious crapola. Does anyone seriously beleive Bush knew in advance of 9/11 and let it happen? Does anyone seriously believe any of the crackpot conspiracy theories TP or Duray post? Does anyone seriously believe that Donald Rumsfeld's sole motivation as SecDef is to line his pockets? You seem unconcerned with the difference between reasonable dissent and crackpot defamation.