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: jlallen who wrote (462804)	9/22/2003 11:08:02 AM
From: FastC6	Respond to of 769667

Just doing the business of the "American people"....screwing them over....he should be liable to pay back all the money spent investigating his lies.

To: jlallen who wrote (462804)	9/22/2003 12:16:11 PM
From: Orcastraiter	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

Al Qaeda was born during the Reagan Bush era. Why are you blaming Clinton? Al-Qaeda, meaning "the base", was created in 1989 as Soviet forces withdrew from Afghanistan and Osama Bin Laden and his colleagues began looking for new jihads. The organisation grew out of the network of Arab volunteers who had gone to Afghanistan in the 1980s to fight under the banner of Islam against Soviet Communism. During the anti-Soviet jihad Bin Laden and his fighters received American and Saudi Arabian funding. Some analysts believe Bin Laden himself had security training from the CIA. news.bbc.co.uk Bush and Reagan were responsible for giving training to bin Laden via the CIA. Strange bedfellows, eh? Trying to put the blame on Clinton for Al Qaeda is typical neocon nonsense. The terrorists don't know the difference between a democrat or a republican. All they know is that America is evil. Clinton launched over 80 cruise missiles in an attempt to hit bin Laden and his training camps. He was not derelict in his duties to defend the country. No one knew the extent or the danger of Al Qaeda before 9-11. Putting blame on Clinton does not make sense. If it was that obvious, then Bush should have done something before 9-11. The blame is Bush's by this logic. And now 2 years after 9-11 bin Laden is still at large. I think that shows how difficult getting bin Laden is, even when you have boots on the ground in Afghanistan. Since the majority of Democrats supported the President's war in Afghanistan and in Iraq, I think your criticism of the dems is unfounded. What the dems find incredulous is the reasons that Bush gave for the war are proving to be unfounded. That the immediacy for war was a fraud. That going forward without the consensus of our allies was fool hardy. This is where the dems and the reps divide. On emphasizing a war in Iraq over the war on Al Qaeda and confusing these missions. On eroding the individual rights of citizens. Of not putting enough effort on Homeland Security. The war in Iraq is not part of the on terror, and the Bush administration has yet to articulate the reason for the immediacy of going to war. All Americans know that we must keep the pressure on the terrorists. But this is a war that we need to work in concert with other nations in the world. It cannot be won without everyone working together. Bush has divided the world. He has not exhibited leadership in the war on terror. A leader knows the value of alliances, and of keeping them strong, especially in the war on terror. This war will ultimately be won by emphasizing intelligence and police action against sleeper cells. Remember this is how we were attacked on 9-11. Orca