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 : Stockman Scott's Political Debate Porch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jim Willie CB who wrote (28725)	9/24/2003 3:35:39 PM
From: TigerPaw	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 89467

Euro & Dollar ananova.com

To: Jim Willie CB who wrote (28725)	9/24/2003 3:41:15 PM
From: Sully-	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 89467

"anyone who believed this bullshit should consider himself or herself a fuching idiot" Count me in. At least I'm in the majority this time. I don't believe everything from this Admin is gospel, but I have faith that they are not intentionally misleading, lying or deceiving anyone about issues relating to Iraq, terrorism, etc. I hold my usual healthy skepticism about any politician. I do believe that post 9/11, that Bush & his Admin has faced this new world appropriately with our nations security as their priority. I don't think that every decision made was 100% the best one, but I do believe they have done quite well overall thus far. FWIW, I think the liberal left has told far more lies & done massively more harm since Nov 2000 than anything yet from the Bush Admin. It's sickening how far this has gone IMO. It's desperate politics more than anything reality based. To me, the level of venom from the left tells me that this is more about fear & loathing than reality. If the Bush Admin did 2% of what they claim there'd already be more known & irrefutable evidence to bring Impeachment & criminal charges immediately. It wouldn't even be a debatable issue. Instead it's mostly conjecture, hype, exaggerations & outright lies & ZERO facts to show for their efforts. That speaks volumes to me. And I am not 100% in the Bush camp. I just don't buy the BS that gets passed along as fact around here. I let reality, time & events form my POV. This thread is more about emotional political attachments with occasional tidbits on the economy & the market from folks like you (other than your political rantings <gg>). It's not even entertaining here these days. I selectively scan this thread for a few laughs & to see what you are up to. That takes a lot of filtering through mountains of crap. It's almost not even worth it.

To: Jim Willie CB who wrote (28725)	9/24/2003 4:17:32 PM
From: Chas.	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 89467

wake up and get your head out of the sand....USA is the clear winner in Iraq............. we are rebuilding Iraq as a mini democracy in the middle of the Arab lands........for all to see.

To: Jim Willie CB who wrote (28725)	9/24/2003 11:12:13 PM
From: stockman_scott	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 89467

In Book, Clark Sees U.S. Errors in Iraq Strategy _______________________________________ Wed September 24, 2003 03:36 PM ET By Grant McCool NEW YORK (Reuters) - The U.S.-led invasion and occupation of Iraq was "a perfect example" of military domination while failing to achieve victory, retired general and Democratic presidential hopeful Wesley Clark wrote in a new book. Clark, who joined the 2004 race last week, also said he learned in November 2001 that the Bush administration's plan for invading Iraq and ousting President Saddam Hussein had been part of a broader five-year military campaign in seven countries that Washington accused of supporting terrorism. He believed that would be a mistake, Clark wrote in "Winning Modern Wars. Iraq, Terrorism and the American Empire" to be published by Public Affairs next month. Clark wrote that a senior military officer told him on a visit to the Pentagon in November 2001 that the U.S. was planning to go against Iraq but there was more to it. After Iraq, the plan called for targeting Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Iran, Somalia and Sudan. "He said it with reproach -- with disbelief, almost -- at the breadth of the vision," Clark wrote. "I moved the conversation away, for this was not something I wanted to see moving forward either. "What a mistake! I reflected -- as though the terrorism were simply coming from those states," said Clark, whose book is a military, diplomatic and strategic analysis rather than a personal account of his long military career. Clark, a four-star Army general, was Supreme Allied Commander in Europe from 1997 to 2000. Clark, 58, said that speculation during the summer, when he was still writing the book, that he might participate in the 2004 election against Republican President Bush "had no bearing on my analysis." TACTICS AND LEADERSHIP He argued in the book that by pursuing Iraq, the U.S. war against the al Qaeda global network of Islamist militants blamed for the Sept. 11 attacks was subordinated. Of the Iraq military campaign, Clark wrote that the "brilliancy of the tactics and leadership" in the battlefield "disguised fundamental flaws in strategy." "Needless risks were taken with the force structure; there was inadequate planning for the postconflict phase; and vital international support was carelessly disregarded. "It has thus far been a perfect example of dominating an enemy force but failing to secure the victory." reuters.com