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: PROLIFE who wrote (498885)	11/26/2003 9:24:11 AM
From: CYBERKEN	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

The test of TREASON for any politician in 2004: Claiming that "Bush lied". Claiming that "Saddam had nothing to do with 91101". Claiming that the Iraq liberation "was unnecessary". Claiming that this TREASON is "just another opposing position by a 'loyal opposition'". Bring on the "Red Dean"! The troops have fought splendidly abroad. It's the PEOPLE'S turn at HOME now. 91101 will not be forgotten in 2004. The "Red Dean" is "America's Saddam Hussein"!...

To: PROLIFE who wrote (498885)	11/26/2003 9:24:40 AM
From: JakeStraw	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769670

PRO, The democrats want to weasel out now and act like they were somehow tricked. This only makes them look even more stupid!

To: PROLIFE who wrote (498885)	11/26/2003 9:27:06 AM
From: JDN	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

You left out Clinton who also said the same. Anyhow, IMHO he did have and still does have WMD. The question is WHERE. I have heard there was a long caravan of trucks going into Syria just before the outbreak of hostilities. Also, for those who dont know, Chemical weapons are NOT MIXED until just before they are ready to be fired for safety and longevity purposes. The Regents HAVE BEEN FOUND and were so reported. So I think its just so much BS for people to say there never was and never would have been WMD. I for one am DAMN GLAD Saddams gone and I feel Bush prevented CHAOS from occuring sooner or later in the Middle East. Had that happened, and energy supplies threatened life would have been a BITCH around here and Gore might have had his way with us all going back to horseback riding and Kenneth walking behind cleaning up the H.S. jdn

To: PROLIFE who wrote (498885)	11/26/2003 9:46:55 AM
From: Kenneth E. Phillipps	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 769670

People at the top of the Administration and CIA - Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz etc should have been asking the hard questions about the fuzzy intelligence but they were not asking the tough questions because they were hell bent on going to war no matter what.

To: PROLIFE who wrote (498885)	11/26/2003 12:25:27 PM
From: Orcastraiter	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

Saddam could have walked away. He did not because of people like you that Saddam figured would do his bidding. I don't think that Saddam could have walked away. Bush's "get outa town before sundown" offer was not a real diplomatic effort. It was pandering to the right wing in a John Waynesque manner. Saddam knew he was toast as the Congress had already voted authorization for the President to act. But I don't think he had any options really but to stand and fight. Where was he going to go? Funny how you personally think that the Republican Admin. knew there was no WMD. Did you feel the same way as literally EVERY ONE OF THE DEMOCRATS said the very same thing and as late as 2002 were saying the same thing and as late as 2003 voted to give the President the authority to take action...how many times do we have to go over this before you open your eyes? So far it has been talked about for about 200k posts. Many people in the congress relied on Bush's interpretation and analysis of the intelligence. I don't think anyone doubted whether the President thought there were weapons. I think a lot of people thought he might have WMD. Bush certainly pushed that notion. It is the job of intelligence not to think about these kind of things, it's to know with certainty what is going on. Especially when you are about to invade another country on this evidence. The intelligence reports that were made available to the public, did not say that Saddam had WMD. They spoke in qualified terms of maybe and probably. Ultimately these reports were wrong. We made decisions to go to war based on these reports. Doesn't anyone think that this needs to be examined in full detail? If we were concerned about the WMD, we had the weapons inspectors back in the country. Why not let them do their job? Why not gather the coalition? Why not wage diplomacy? Why not increase the pressure on Iraq to have and hold free elections? Why the rush to bombardment? We may have squirted Saddam out of power. But there will be many others that will try to gain power in Iraq, including Saddam. The moment that the US pulls out, there will be terror, and revolution and power grabs. Who doubts that? So we are left with the stark reality of having to occupy Iraq in some sense for what seems likely to be a decade or more. This is another Vietnam for our country in many ways. We have to be careful that we don't end up being hated by the Iraqis, and lots of them do not want the US there. While we can all be glad that Saddam is out of power, for the moment, many people in this country and in the world believe that we had alternatives at hand to deal effectively with Saddam and the situation in Iraq. Bush's approach to the problem is like using a chain saw to do surgery. Unfortunately much damage has resulted from this approach. Orca