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 : WHO IS RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT IN 2004 -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Glenn Petersen who wrote (1440)	3/15/2003 3:00:43 PM
From: PROLIFE	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10965

SOME PEOPLE have said, well, what about that vote in Congress, but the president had the authority,” Kerry said. He insisted he had no regrets about his vote last October, which gave Bush congressional approval to use force, but he added that, even despite that vote, Bush had still not earned “the legitimacy and consent of the American people.” LOLOL---what a moron.

To: Glenn Petersen who wrote (1440)	3/15/2003 3:24:56 PM
From: American Spirit	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 10965

Kerry's stance on the war is very clear. He voted yes IF we have maximum allies and UN support. That view is shared by the majority of Americans, though not some on the Democratic left. Since Bush has been unable to do that, therein lies the confusion. What can a man in Kerry's position say now except "you should have gotten the coalition committed first the way your father did". Kerry is not going to call for our troops to come home. He wants Saddam disarmed. But he wants stronger UN backing too. So does Bush, but Bush has blown it in that respect. Too late it seems. Now it is Bush's problem (and Saddam's) to decide. Obviously, in hindsight, Bush would have done things differently, either gone in unilaterally and faced the criticism or stuck to the sincere coalition-building. Instead, he has been inbetween and therefore the confusion. Now all any of us can do is voice our concern, then give our support if and when the dogs of war are let loose, praying we have a quick decisive victory. But all of this has been done in a shoddy mixed-up manner. GW has used neither the damn-it-all clarity of Reagan and Clinton, nor the coalition-building diplomacy to the degree necessary. Now both Bush and Saddam are cornered. Bush would seem to have little choice now but to attack ASAP. But really as shame it was done this way. Just poor foreign policy mixed up with too much domestic politics.