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: Ann Corrigan who wrote (421697)	7/2/2003 10:22:32 AM
From: TigerPaw	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769670

Isn't it better to be pro-active The attack on Iraq has made another attack on the American mainland more likely. As a result of Junior's blunders many warnings that might have been passed along will not be. Pro-active does not mix well with hubris and secrecy. TP

To: Ann Corrigan who wrote (421697)	7/2/2003 10:50:23 AM
From: Raymond Duray	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 769670

Hi Anne, Well, you appear to know more about I-95 than you do about foreign affairs.... Re: Anyone who believes diplomacy can make a difference with organizations like al Qaeda is foolish to say the least. First of all, it is in no way certain that "al Qaeda" had anything to do with the events of 9/11. All we have is unsubstantiated stories from the Bushies who are fighting tooth and nail to avoid any real public scrutiny of the events surrounding 9/11. This is a huge red flag that Americans seem to be too dense to figure out. Secondly, you seem to caught up in the Bush lie about al Qaeda having anything to do with the secularist Ba'ath Party of Iraq. Nothing could be more preposterous. Are you buying the bullshit that now totally discredited in the minds of anyone who has paid the least bit of attention to reality? Re: Everyone must admit that if action was not taken in Afghistan & Iraq at this time, another terrorist catastrophe at home would have initiated military force in the Mid-east within a couple yrs Again, you are being delusional. There is no particular reason to make this connection. This is a paranoid statement and you really ought to investigate psychiatrists who might be able to help you overcome your symptoms. Any rational observer could see that Saddam Hussein was a spent force who had been completely neutered by the 1991 War and the sanctions regime. His neighbors didn't consider him a threat. For a woman living in central Pennsylvania to consider him as such indicates a very loose grip on reality on your behalf. You seem to be the victim of a mass delusion that is being imposed on this nation by an extremely malevolent and fraudulent national leadership. -Ray

To: Ann Corrigan who wrote (421697)	7/2/2003 12:22:29 PM
From: American Spirit	Respond to of 769670

Wesley Clark could also run as a Republican. McCain-Clark would be a great ticket for the GOP. Afghanistan was a bi-partisan war, but why did 9-11 happen in the first place? The 9-11 report shows Bush was warned repeatedly about such attacks but did nothing. So why do you consider him tough on terrorism. When it counted, he was AWOL. Compare military records. johnkerry.com awolbush.com and to Wesley Clark and John McCain Bush says "bring it on!" but he's not the one getting shot at, pretends he is though. And the ones shooting are not just Saddam loyalists as Bushies claims, they're Muslim Shiites too, waging Jihads from the Mosques. They're all types of people in Iraq. Bush says "bring it on!" and maybe they'll say "okay" and kill more of our soldiers. Bush is playing to Joe Sixpack and trying to sound tough but he's really reckless with the livs of our servicemen. He also says "we welcome help" but shafted the UN and threfore rejected peacekeepers.