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: JohnM who wrote (59553)	12/2/2002 1:38:19 PM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

And Bush has been correct. The last thing we need is a three- ring circus of investigations allowing for ever more brilliant political grandstanding. The Iraqis and other foes would just interpret such a thing as showing that Bush is on the ropes politically, and wait for the knockout blow. Did you hear about the politician who lost an election because rumor had it his wife was a thespian? How about the guy who voted against the Motherhood and Apple Pie bill, the main subject of which was providing condoms to teenagers gratis, along with subsidizing desserts for school lunches? Obviously, I am inventing, but it is not too far from the kind of stupid stuff that goes on. Bringing up Bush's DUI, which occurred almost 30 years before in a resort community, before the present "zero tolerance" atmosphere, at the last minute of the campaign was almost as stupid. Who knows what sort of innuendo and melodrama would have been cooked up over 9-11.......

To: JohnM who wrote (59553)	12/2/2002 1:46:08 PM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Hello to you, too. As for the Bush administration's aversion to an independent commission to investigate 9-11, it's been in all the papers, ad nauseum. Games played in the extreme. Take a look. I suspect that I read as many newspapers as anyone. Haven't seen anything like what you describe. As for keeping the lid on, that's also been in all the papers, though it might be better expressed as not wishing to have any investigation they cannot control down to the size of the water glasses. Haven't seen that, either. A little attribution would do wonders for your points, which I'm not prepared to yet swallow whole. Let's hear facts, not impressions. As for the Kissinger point, it's too self evident to argue about. Let's see: "all over the newspapers..", "..too self-evident...". You allergic to facts? Attribution and sourcing give you a rash? Welcome back. I see we're going to have fun.