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 : The Castle -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: MSI who wrote (446)	11/13/2002 5:50:24 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 7936

Failure to protect the country, and actively obstructing justice is a high crime No failure is usually do to incompitence, powerful or skilfull oposition, or just bad luck. Not pushing hard for an investigation is not actively obstructing justice. particularly if there is further continuing evidence of a cover-up. That's what brought Nixon down Now that is actively obstructing justice, but it is also adding a new idea beyond what had been previously discussed. Are you claiming that Bush is and has been actively covering up some involvment with 9/11? 9/11 was certainly a reason to retaliate. It was a television show. Bombs were dropped, but the terrorist leadership just accidentally vanished through an air corridor to Pakistan, where we've kept close ties with ISI for two decades. It was a bit more then a TV show. A government was thrown out of power. At least hundreds if not thousands of Al-Qaida rank and file were killed or captured a long with some of the top leadership and "middle management". Al-Qaida's wasn't run by a bunch of total idiots, they know how to set up places to run to and they knew that they had to run as we pushed in to Afghanistan. I'm sure there where things we could have done better which would probably have resulted in more Al Qaida being captured or killed but if our leadership was the wisest, most intelligent, skillful and determined the world has ever seen a lot of Al Qaida still would have gotten away. "We have captured or killed a whole lot of Al-Qaida. " I would love to hear that statement from any of the Bush League. We hear the opposite: "terrorism is increasing" is the message. The two are not mutally exlusive. An enemy that has been hurt can still be dangerous, in fact sometimes they become more dangerous in the short run. So, either they have to invent more groups, or the identified group is alive and well. Which is exactly what they say, not that it's been destroyed. Neither Bush, nor I have said that Al Qaida has been destroyed. What I said was that we captured or killed a lot of Al Qaida. Probably in the low thousand range. But that doesn't mean we got them all or even half of them. What's happening is belligerence breeds belligerence, and increasing warfare is the inevitable result, not increasing security for the US. I don't think that is universially true, I would rather examine the particular actual or proposed US military actions on a case by case basis. Some will be justified, others may not be. Rather than focusing on those responsible for 9/11, it's party time, go after every military, political and financial agenda item. We are pretty much doing whatever we can to go after Al Qaida. That doesn't mean that we want Saddam to get a nuke. As for party time and going after every military agenda item it doesn't seem like that is the case. We are working through the UN security council in our attempt to disarm Iraq of its WMD. We have not attacked North Korea, or countries like Syria and Iran that have sponsored terrorism. The only real military targets seem to be terrorists and Iraq (with which we have been in a low intensity war with ever since the high intensity war stopped in 1991) The Saudis are not "our enemies pure and simple". I agree with the idea of pressing them for greater cooperation but its not like the Saudi government is the same as Al-Qaida. Get out of the Middle East, and let them solve their own problems, and ask for help from an honest broker like the UN, which the US can participate, but which ALL COUNTRIES are responsible for. Do you think pulling out of the ME would really stop Al-Qaida and groups like it? The UN is mostly a joke. Tim