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 Policy Discussion Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: zonder who wrote (2537)	1/22/2003 4:27:50 AM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 15987

he has lied in the past (ex: his army service) "Bad Mouth" Bush all you want, zonder, but I don't think that one holds up. Don't believe what you have read on other threads. If Bush had lied about his Military Service, the Dems would have defeated him with it in 2000. They looked like mad, and could not find anything. I think the French are worried about what might show up in Iraqi records about their complicity when we take the place. Might be part of the reason for the tremendous opposition right now. TWT.

To: zonder who wrote (2537)	1/22/2003 10:58:15 AM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 15987

As far as I know, although question were raised about a portion of his military service, he has never been proven to have lied, and, in any case, he received an honorable discharge. I also have followed allegations about his business "track record", and have found nothing especially shady. If the SEC had thought there was more than a technical violation, it would have followed up, but it did not. In any case, no "smoking gun". Good people do not foment war merely in order to gain profits. I do not believe that this Administration is intent upon putting our troops in harms way merely for oil. A toady is more or less a flatterer or "yesman". I do not believe that he would put British boys in harm's way, or, for that matter, kill Iraqi boys, merely for profits. There never was an invasion "frenzy". This whole thing has been very methodical. I always knew that Bush would seek UN cooperation and Congressional approval, once he had maneuvered them into having to take the matter seriously. The Democrats could always have hidden behind the UN, and refused to authorize force before the renewal of inspections. My point is that all the key players basically know that the issue is the objective threat constituted by Saddam......