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: Tenchusatsu who wrote (170796)	6/7/2003 5:34:31 PM
From: Alighieri	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1584013

He didn't finish the job because Clinton didn't have the reason nor the balls to do so. Or maybe a stronger sense of morality..but you are right, it takes balls to lie to the country and invade a weaker nation. Al

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (170796)	6/7/2003 7:00:43 PM
From: tejek	Respond to of 1584013

Ted, Clinton did not make an armed move against Iraq because he did not believe they were building WMD. He DID make an armed move against Iraq. Remember Operation Desert Fox? You do see the difference between that and the Iraqi war. He didn't finish the job because Clinton didn't have the reason nor the balls to do so. You just said it.....Clinton didn't have the reason. The intelligence was inconclusive. Then again, Bush I had the reason but he still didn't do it. It took GW to do it but he may have lied about the reason. It doesn't take balls for the US to attack a small nation like Iraq. What takes balls is using a lie to justify making such an attack. Do you think GW has big ones? We'll know in the next month or so. Whether he believed Iraq was building WMD or not (BTW, the notion that he didn't believe it is a crock of BS) is irrelevant. How do you know that? He told you? Don't you get it......the only ones that have been 'sure' since 1998 were Bush and his cabal, and now they are suspected of lying to the American public. Why the fukk do you not care? Is partisanship more important to you than the well being of your country? You guys pretend to be such partiots but its not patriotism you practice, its partisanship. All he wanted to do was teach Saddam a lesson and divert attention from the Lewinsky scandal with minimal political cost. Same thing with the failed cruise missile attack against Al Qaeda. If you believe that, then you believe Bush started the war to divert attention from the lagging economy. Same attitude.....different story. All of it is image over substance. In my opinion, that is worse than what Bush did (unless it can be proven that Bush really did lie, which I don't buy at the moment). If you believe that, then you really don't get the ramifications of what Bush has done. If he lied as some are suggesting, then he needs to be impeached. It probably won't happen......too many Rep. Congressmen think like you, and are totally into partisanship but that's what should happen. Read John Dean's article......he lays it all. BTW John Dean is a Republican who doesn't practice partisanship exclusively. ted