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: TimF who wrote (173846)	8/14/2003 11:44:26 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574001

For starters spend the money allocated for terrorists on trying to capture the terrorists and not on the Iraqi war. The money allocated for fighting terrorist is being used to fight terrorists. The money allocated for the Iraq war is being used for the Iraq war. That's not true......in a recent article I read, they said that there is not enough money for the Iraqi postwar efforts and terrorist monies have been diverted to that effort. Don't ask me to find the article......I have no idea where I saw it. The money for the Iraq war doesn't prevent spending on anti-terrorism any more then any other federal spending prevents anti-terrorism spending. There is X amount of money......if funds are diverted from one account to another, then the first account comes up short. I>In any case I doubt you would actually advocate spending zero on Iraq now. I know you would not have gone there in the first place but we are there and if you suddenly became president or even dictator you would have to deal with that reality. I would spend money in Iraq but not at the expense of the terrorist efforts. Diversion of the funds supports the notion that the Bush administration is too preoccupied with the Iraqi war at the expense of the war on terrorism ted