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: LindyBill who wrote (47368)	9/27/2002 2:06:42 AM
From: D. Long	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

The New York Times reports that Gore wrote the speech "after consulting a fairly far-flung group of advisers that included Rob Reiner." Current U.S. foreign policy is the combined product of Donald Rumsfeld, Condoleezza Rice, Dick Cheney, Colin Powell, Paul Wolfowitz and the president. Meanwhile, the pretender is huddling with Meathead. ROFLMAO! Derek

To: LindyBill who wrote (47368)	9/27/2002 6:43:44 AM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Mustn't . . . say . . . bad . . . things . . . about Gore . . . on FL's thread . . . but. . . my fingers . . . Oh, I had forgotten his voice. When I heard him speaking it all came back like a bad dream. Being lectured as if I were a naughty three year old . . . . But I hate this finger-pointing exercise everybody is engaging in about 9/11. The rank and file in the intelligence agencies had a lot of data but didn't put it together - couldn't put it together - due to the way they were set up. I wish the finger-pointing would stop, but I know it won't stop until right after the election in November.

To: LindyBill who wrote (47368)	9/27/2002 11:52:45 AM
From: JohnM	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

think Krauthammer tends to be reasoned. Let me point to a few things in this column which are not the work of reason but the work of spite. If the Taliban were a fifth-rate military power, why didn't the Clinton-Gore administration destroy it and spare us Sept. 11? We all know the serious answer to this question is everyone's reading, including the incoming Bush administration's read before 9-11, that the US public would not support such activity. You could just as easily ask the Bush folk why they did nothing as soon as they came to office, but rather put the Clinton administration recommendations to do something sooner rather than later, on the shelf. Which were still on the shelf at 9-11. I don't think 9-11 changed "everything." But it did change the willingness, in very deep ways, of the American public to tolerate military action against bin Laden. So that's cheap shot number 1 from K. One can argue either way, but the burden of proof is on those urging the more onerous and risky MacArthur regency. If Gore were a serious man he would make the case. But he doesn't. He doesn't even try to. He is too thin. And too cynical. Who knows who the burden proof is on but it's certainly on the Bush folk to argue the merits of their own policy. Which they refuse to do. For Gore to point that out is fair game; for K to argue that Gore should have put forward a long foreign policy justifying and detailing a different policy is a cheap shot. I don't think K brings anything to the table in terms of substance whereas other columnists of similar political persuasions do--Novak and Safire leap immediately to mind, Kristol on occasion.