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: tejek who wrote (433360)	7/25/2003 11:18:17 AM
From: tejek	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769667

Now It's Right War, Wrong Reason Commentary by Daniel Schorr for The Christian Science Monitor "If we are wrong [about Iraq and weapons of mass destruction]," said Prime Minister Tony Blair before Congress last week, "we will have destroyed a threat that, at its very least, is responsible for inhumane carnage and suffering." President Bush was not ready to concede the possibility of having invaded Iraq on a wrong premise. Standing next to Mr. Blair at the White House, he said, "We won't be proven wrong." However, he did not say that he would be proven right. A school of thought is emerging that Saddam Hussein was not so much covering up his possession of banned weapons as his lack of them. The Wall Street Journal reported that in 1990, weeks before the Gulf War, Iraqi scientists ran an unsuccessful test of a biological agent called ricin, made from castor beans, and then scrapped the program. In The Washington Post, columnist David Ignatius speculates that Hussein's science adviser, Amir Saadi, and Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz are being kept under wraps by the American authorities because they might testify that the dictator had long since destroyed his weapons of mass destruction. Why, then, would he have not disclosed that fact to the United Nations inspectors? Presumably, says Mr. Ignatius, because he would lose a deterrent to attack by his Kurdish and Shiite enemies. The New Republic magazine goes further in a major article, based partly on interviews with Iraqi scientists. It says that fear of Hussein kept scientists from telling him of weapons programs that had failed or were scrapped. If the weapons were gone, then why didn't Hussein cooperate with UN inspectors to establish that and possibly avert an invasion? The consensus among the weapons hunters, says The New Republic, is that Hussein didn't want to appear weak at home and that uncertainty about the weapons could serve as a deterrent to American forces. The president insists that piles of weapons will eventually be found. Blair says that piles of bodies are enough to justify the war. <font color=red>As the days and weeks drag on with no sign of an arsenal of banned weapons, it looks as though the occupiers of Iraq are slowly moving their thesis to the idea of the right war for the wrong reason. It remains to be seen whether that switch in the propaganda line will fly.<font color=black> • Daniel Schorr is a senior news analyst at National Public Radio. © 2003 The Christian Science Monitor

To: tejek who wrote (433360)	7/25/2003 11:24:45 AM
From: jlallen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

I would agree that given the mess Bush inherited from Clinton, 9/11 and the wars, the economy worsened while Bush was President but there are encouraging signs that is changing.....as for iraq being attacked for no good reason...that's just silly pinhead logic given the overwhelming evidence to the contrary....you might check into one of those cult centers yourself.....you could use some adjustments...

To: tejek who wrote (433360)	7/25/2003 11:27:12 AM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 769667

You apparently know little about economics, less about foreign affairs. The recession was a direct result of the bursting of the high tech bubble in the stock market, as well as too much consumer borrowing during the Clinton "boom". It had nothing to do with Bush. The recession did not last long, nor was it particularly deep, which means that the economy improved under Bush, for whatever reason, just as it did under Roosevelt. However, as with Roosevelt, there remained a problem with employment, though it was much worse in the '30s...........