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 : Stockman Scott's Political Debate Porch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: thames_sider who wrote (7410)	9/26/2002 9:10:31 AM
From: TigerPaw	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 89467

all of the above. Do you see an Anglophile angle? There's a lot of suspicion that Bush and Blair are all Englishmen, just from different countries. TP

To: thames_sider who wrote (7410)	9/26/2002 10:48:04 AM
From: Jim Willie CB	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 89467

good to hear from a Brit over the Thames got a question for you regarding evidence on Sodomy do you believe the lengthy dossier presented before British Parliament on Iraq's weapon potential is consistent with American Intelligence ? I have heard and read only a few details on Sodomy's capability the part most alarming to me is the German-made equipment for uranium refinement the constant refrain that Sodomy has no missile or aircraft delivery system is empty to me if he has high-grade uranium or plutonium, then he can make the next leap to detonation (not simple), explode something on a small scale, by delivering it on the back of some idiot teenager who seeks a dozen virgins to stroke his oar in the next life of course, the smallpox threat is very big and very real delivery could be from artillery, for God's sake Sodomy must be fearful of infecting his own country by accident we hear far too little from US Intell sources I suspect US Intell is the 4th best on the planet far too much trust is requested of US citizens we have far too little reason to trust these days honesty is a true scarcity in my humble opinion lately didnt Tony Blair make that trip last autumn around the Islamic world to sample some of East Asia's finest feminine pulchritude ? I have always thought Tony is an honorable competent and strong leader thanks for your comments / jim

To: thames_sider who wrote (7410)	9/26/2002 11:17:21 AM
From: abuelita	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 89467

james - thanks for your reply.

To: thames_sider who wrote (7410)	9/26/2002 11:22:41 AM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 89467

The Healthy Politics of Iraq Lead Editorial The New York Times September 26, 2002 President Bush and the Democrats in Congress are suddenly in meltdown mode over the issue of who is playing politics on the eve of a possible war with Iraq. Mr. Bush has begun using the campaign against terrorism in his stump speeches, declaring that Democrats are "not interested in the security of the American people." Yesterday Tom Daschle, the Senate majority leader, fired back with an impassioned denunciation of Mr. Bush. Meanwhile, Al Gore is accusing the president of being political, and being accused of the same thing by the White House. None of this is unhealthy. We just wish all this intensity was being directed at the issue of Iraq instead of people's political motives. The Democrats have nothing to be ashamed of in raising questions about whether a war to oust Saddam Hussein is justified right now. If anything, Mr. Daschle and Richard Gephardt, the House minority leader, have been timid in refusing to challenge the White House strategy of mounting a war effort with only minimal consultation with American allies in Europe, the Arab world and the United Nations. At first Mr. Daschle said he wanted an extended debate about a possible war. Then he panicked after it became clear that such a debate would put the most vulnerable Senate Democrats on the spot in the election. Now Mr. Daschle wants a war resolution passed within two weeks. Mr. Gore no doubt made a political calculation in deciding to attack the war against Iraq, just as he made a political calculation to keep quiet about his disagreements with Mr. Bush for so long after the election. The mere impudence of his thinking that he might have something to say has alarmed many let's-change-the-subject Democrats and sent Republicans into a gleeful litany of personal attacks against a favorite enemy. But the fact is that many Democrats in Congress who are rushing to get a resolution passed say privately they agree with Mr. Gore, who accused the White House of botching the campaign against terrorism and mobilizing the United States for war with Iraq to avoid having to talk about its economic failures. It is not, and should not be, possible to debate sending troops into battle without people getting passionate and angry. There is no more grave obligation by members of the House and Senate than to look carefully at such a question. The Bush administration has to recognize the legitimate concerns of lawmakers who do not want to give the president a blank check to wage war wherever he wants in the region and without any initial steps being taken to try to avoid a conflict. Casting slurs on the patriotism of anyone who raises a question is unfair and borders on un-American. The main questions that Congress and the administration need to address are simple. Congress must write a resolution that proposes a timetable in which the United Nations will have a chance to resume weapons inspections and disarm Saddam Hussein's most lethal weapons before force is authorized. The White House and lawmakers must lay out for Americans the potential effects a war would have on the drive against terrorism, and the struggle to track down the perpetrators of the Sept. 11 attacks. They should also come forward with a more comprehensive discussion of what sort of government is to be established in Iraq after what could be a swift rout of Mr. Hussein's forces. Picking up the pieces in Iraq after a war, and installing a government that commands the respect of Iraq's fractious population, could prove more difficult than unseating Mr. Hussein. These are huge questions. Debating them vigorously right now does not preclude the use of force against Iraq. It guarantees that force, if it is used, will be carried out with the full understanding of the people about what they're getting into. What we do not need is a fight about how awful it is to have a fight. Americans are more mature than that. nytimes.com