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: American Spirit who wrote (159796)	2/2/2003 2:07:01 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1578289

If you had listened to the Hardball round-table on NK you'd have seen five out of five of the bi-partisan experts criticizing Bush for his handling of NK and the Axis speech having started the trouble. That includes GOP top Senator Lugar who said he wishes we could just go back to the Clinton box we had NK in before. I saw the show you're referring to. And I'd like for you to tell me who the "bi-partisans" were. As for Lugar & Buchanan: - Lugar did not say what you've proclaimed. You are telling another out-and-out lie. What he did say was that given where we are today some containment would be better than no containment. I don't think you can point me to a link of ANY politician who says that was a good place for us to be. Even though he is a liberal Republican, he has, subsequent to that show, strongly supported the Bush policy in all respects. Nobody in their right mind would go back to the horrible deal Clinton made. -Buchanan - A fine conservative with a different view.

To: American Spirit who wrote (159796)	2/2/2003 3:17:47 PM
From: hmaly	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1578289

As...If you had listened to the Hardball round-table on NK you'd have seen five out of five of the bi-partisan experts criticizing Bush for his handling of NK and the Axis speech having started the trouble. Gee, how hard is that? Chris is a known liberal with an agenda, like Donahue, so how hard is it for the producers to ask enough people until they could find 5 who slightly supported Chris's agenda. Would it surprise you to know I saw guests on O Reilly who support GW. Because we have no military option there except a bloodbath. Why on earth would we need a military option with NK. All we have to do is not feed them.

To: American Spirit who wrote (159796)	2/2/2003 3:18:34 PM
From: hmaly	Respond to of 1578289

As...If you had listened to the Hardball round-table on NK you'd have seen five out of five of the bi-partisan experts criticizing Bush for his handling of NK and the Axis speech having started the trouble. Gee, how hard is that? Chris is a known liberal with an agenda, like Donahue, so how hard is it for the producers to ask enough people until they could find 5 who slightly supported Chris's agenda. Would it surprise you to know I saw guests on O Rielly who support GW. Because we have no military option there except a bloodbath. Why on earth would we need a military option with NK. All we have to do is not feed them.

To: American Spirit who wrote (159796)	2/2/2003 11:21:11 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1578289

Pat Buchanon went so far as to say Bush had risked our country's security with the speech, and that we have no option now but giving NK what they want through third parties and pretending we;re not negotiating with them. Why? Because we have no military option there except a bloodbath. Buchanan, like McCain, is becoming an outspoken critic of Bush's foreign policy. He would probably criticize Bush's domestic policy as well if there was one. For a conservative, Buchanan makes a lot of sense. ted