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: Bilow who wrote (37685)	8/13/2002 10:07:19 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Respond to of 281500

(3) You've included Turkey and Jordan, but they've repeatedly said "no". ...and doubtless will say "no" many more times. Meanwhile, the Turks just captured an airbase in Northern Iraq and 8,000 American troops have landed in Aqaba. Inquiring minds want to know what Turkey and Jordan are actually doing, not just what their diplomats are saying. There doesn't seem to be a close correspondence between the two, now does there?

To: Bilow who wrote (37685)	8/13/2002 10:50:04 PM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

You know this. Are you just making me dig up sources? Their lips say "no" but their eyes say "yes yes."-g- Difference between you and me is that you are thinking like an engineer - logically - and I am thinking like a lawyer - deviously. I posted earlier a fairly lengthy story that ran in today's USAToday, Rummy is p'o'ed about leaks. Message 17872322 Notice the dog that didn't bark. Nobody is denying the stories. Here's another - Navy retracts denial. Message 17872269 The story ran, the denial ran, and the retraction ran. Talk about getting maximum press on one story. Why the leaks? Why now? The most devious reason, hence the most reliable (to me) is that we are ourselves orchestrating the leaks. The article suggests: >>So far, no one at the Pentagon has been locked up for leaking to reporters, sparking a different kind of speculation: the possibility that the Bush administration is letting slip tantalizing but ultimately harmless bits of military information to confuse the enemy or win over skeptics.<< My own opinion is that it's designed to win over skeptics, and it worked on me. I am a fairly typical American. I don't like intervention, but when we do, I stand by our troops. During Viet Nam, I protested, but I wasn't one of the people screaming "baby killers." What made me angry was that our hands were tied and we weren't allowing our men to do what they needed to do in order to win. If we're gonna do it, let's do it right, get it done, and get it over with. Whatever it takes.