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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: PROLIFE who wrote (345470)	1/21/2003 11:49:22 AM
From: SeachRE	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

There is always 3 sides to a story: his, the police's and the real story. It surprises me that you are jumping to conclusions. Troubling lowlife...

To: PROLIFE who wrote (345470)	1/21/2003 12:26:54 PM
From: MSI	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769670

Which is more important? a) war crimes, leading to possible nuclear attack b) dismissed charges in unavailable court records someone claims are a sting operation for someone involving sex Take your time .... Here's the text of the same article, giving a clue why there is such a brew-ha-ha : "I would be in favor of the impeachment of President Bush for high crimes and misdemeanors," the 41-year old former Marine told WND. "Murder is a high crime and misdemeanor, and I can't think of any better definition than murder when he talks about American service members and putting them in a war which is not only illegal but is based on a foundation of lies." "When you go to war you open up a Pandora's box, the results of which cannot be predicted," he said. "Therefore, there better be a darned good reason to go to war. It's got to be worth the sacrifice that you're asking others to make." WorldNetDaily recently interviewed Ritter via telephone as he drove from his New York home to appear on Fox News. Throughout the interview, he contended that media have consistently missed his primary concern regarding the proposed military strike against Iraq. Ritter said the issue is the abrogation of the rule of law, which he views as setting the U.S. up for a particularly nasty potential scenario – U.S. troops cornered in Iraq, subject to chemical attack, which then prompts the use of nuclear weapons by the U.S. "The Bush administration has put forward a nuclear policy planning document which clearly states a scenario in which nuclear weapons can be used pre-emptively and that scenario is tens of thousands of troops in a hostile land, threatened by the potential of chemical and biological weapons," he said. "And clearly, Iraq could evolve into such a situation."