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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: LindyBill who wrote (15374)	11/6/2003 5:32:11 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 793608

Because we can't do one without the other, Karen. As you know, I've been struggling mightily to connect the dots between fending off terrorists and a focus on invading Iraq. When I think of how we can prevent a repeat of 9-11, my brain doesn't automatically rush to Iraq any more than, looking for a way to get rich I would automatically think of getting a PhD in the classics. My brain more naturally looks at directly connected things like all those folks who overstay their visas, in particular, those among them who flew planes into buildings. Now, if the WH had said that terrorism will exist as long as there is no peace in the ME so we have to direct ourselves to bringing peace to the ME, hey, I can appreciate that. Bringing peace to the ME is a worthwhile goal with or without a connection to 9-11, for heaven's sake. So why didn't the WH just say so, if that's what they had in mind? Why did we get fed this argument about WMD and suitcase bombs and smallpox, the argument with the missing dots? Why has the WH been billing this as a war on terror and terrorists rather than a mission to bring peace to the ME? That sure would have saved the WH those distracting contortions such as trying to tie Saddam with African uranium or al Qaida. Such a puzzlement!