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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: KonKilo who wrote (112623)	8/24/2003 3:06:49 PM
From: Sig	Respond to of 281500

>> It was only upon his horribly misguided foray into Iraq that he encountered substantive, principled opposition.>>> Since we venture far back in history to WW1, WW2, Vietnam, etc in predicting what could go wrong in Iraq I suppose it would not hurt to go back to 2000 Was that substantive opposition Bush faced when Gore supporters took over 100 attorneys to Florida, counted chads for weeks, then took the case to the Florida Supreme Court My prediction here is that GWB will survive and prosper. Sig

To: KonKilo who wrote (112623)	8/24/2003 3:44:42 PM
From: greenspirit	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

And you may recall a substantial amount of support, both here and abroad, for Bush following 9-11 and into Afghanistan. It was only upon his horribly misguided foray into Iraq that he encountered substantive, principled opposition. Actually, I can recall no such thing. Please point me to a post of yours, or any of the other critics who routinely post here, where they spoke approvingly of Bush after 9/11 and during our fight in Afghanistan? It's been one set of criticisms after another. The pages of the N.Y. Times are full of them. Here's a brief history lesson. 1. Hillary attempted to blame Bush right after the events of 9/11. 2. Many Democrats followed her, until they detected the American public were not falling for it. 3. Many Democrats criticized Bush for going into Afghanistan. Including the leading paper of Democrat record the N.Y. Times. 4. They criticized him for causing a famine in Afghanistan, before the first troops arrived. 5. They predicted we would fall victim to the same 10 year Vietnam type war the Soviet Union had. 6. They criticized the fact that we were caught in a quagmire, after 1 month of conflict. 7. They said Bush and company didn't send enough troops to Afghanistan and it was a recipe for disaster. 8. They said we would lose thousands of troops in bloody battle after bloody battle. 9. They said we couldn't create a Democratic government in a place rife with strife like Afghanistan. 10. They said Al Queada (the spelling is probably wrong so this will give some human spell checker ammunition), would attack our cities as we incited more violence. 11. Some Senators of the left variety (namely Patty Murray) suggested Ben Ladan was a humanitarian of sorts, and we should be careful how we judge him. I could go on and on, but it's so easy to document the fallacy of your position. Connecting the dots and seeing the pattern is easy. Many of those who are still bitter about the election results, are fixated on anti-Bush posts. Bringing up the election the way you did, only serves to highlight that.