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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: hmaly who wrote (157190)	1/1/2003 10:39:05 AM
From: i-node	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1580147

From Al's "article": Were it not for Powell, the chicken hawks in the administration -- warmongers who have not themselves experienced battle -- already would have us invading Iraq without giving U.N. inspectors a chance. Led by Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, these strident cheerleaders for so-called preemptive action are obviously disappointed that the Iraq inspections have turned up nothing more then the rusting remnants of a deadly weapons programs originated -- and used -- with the full knowledge of the U.S. government to punish fundamentalist Iran. It is, to me, frustrating to see liberals continue to assert (unassailed) that Bush (or for that matter, Cheney & Rumsfeld) are anxious to go to war. Bush has been exceptionally patient, and has listened closely to the counsel of his cabinet. This is what presidents ARE SUPPOSED to do -- take advice from the cabinet, and make a decision. It is the entire point of having a cabinet. The last thing you want is an autocratic president who doesn't know how to delegate (we just had one of those). There exists a group of critics who attribute to Bush certain decisions PRIOR TO the decision being made. For example, these people assert that Bush had decided to go to war, UNILATERALLY, when no such decision had been made. When asked, Bush is saying, "I have made no decision on how to handle the Iraq situation. There are no war plans on my desk". Yet, you have this huge contingent of media and other liberals claiming that Bush has UNILATERAL war plans. The truth comes out, i.e., Bush consulted with his cabinet and decided to go before the UN. Then the allegations began flying -- UN is a formality, Bush is going to war either way. UNILATERALLY. It bothers me because I believe a great number of people fall for it and come away believing Bush is a warmonger. On this thread, Ted and Al have both concluded that Bush is hell-bent on war with Iraq, Iran, and NK, when in fact, it is clear Bush prefers other means of solving these problems. But he has faced the reality that they may not be handled without war. The Republicans do nothing to counter this propaganda. Perhaps they just don't think it matters.

To: hmaly who wrote (157190)	1/1/2003 2:28:33 PM
From: tejek	Respond to of 1580147

I assume this part is the point of the article; that you feel the war on terrorism would be better served if we went to war against all of the others first and took care of Saddam later. What was your first clue? ted

To: hmaly who wrote (157190)	1/2/2003 9:31:20 AM
From: Alighieri	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1580147

I assume this part is the point of the article; that you feel the war on terrorism would be better served if we went to war against all of the others first and took care of Saddam later. Not quite an objective interpretation. The author is echoing what many have said, including prominent people on the right and the left. Which is that the war on Saddam is but a distracting sidebar whose consequences are far from understood. I myself think further that it is a convenient sideline, aimed at distracting America's attention from more difficult tasks, and particularly aimed at election results, which is why the administration is hell bent on doing it now. Let's face it...defeating Saddam is a relatively safe bet that works very well to woo like minded Americans at an electorally favorable time, certanly safer than to fail at many more difficult tasks, such as capturing AlQueda leaders, destroying the organization worldwide, solving the Palestinian/Israeli conflict, stabilizing Afghanistan, solving the Pakistan/India conflict, putting the economy on better footing, reducing budget deficits, and a pletora of other domestic issues. Al