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 (522466)	1/11/2004 11:41:46 AM
From: Thomas A Watson	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

I remember several of retarded who post here going on and on about the President's use of bring it on. It was stupid analysis. Saying one is not afraid and we we resist you is one thing. But clark's claim of no attacks if he is President is a sign of severe stupidity. That statement puts his and the credibility of the Presidency on the line and makes the value of any successful attack higher. And he is polling in 2nd place in the brain dead world of the dems.

To: PROLIFE who wrote (522466)	1/11/2004 12:06:58 PM
From: PartyTime	Respond to of 769670

>>>yes, and he MAY have used them to kill thousands of Kurds...or did they just die of the thought of them?<<< OK. So how does your GOPwinger team reconcile with what Stephen C Pelletiere claims? Pelletiere was senior CIA political analyst on Iraq during Iran-Iraq war. query.nytimes.com Message 19627993 And since you're sharp on the subject, here's a few questions: 1) Did the CIA help to place Hussein's Ba'ath Party in power in 1963? 2) Did President Carter encourage Iraq to invade Iran, and wasn't a consequence of this invation the eventual suppression of Iraq's non-Ba'athist political entities and people? 3) Did President Reagan continue Carter's policy? 4) During the Reagan years did the U.S. protest the use of chemical weapons as a brutal violation of international law? Or did the U.S. protect Iraq in the UN? 5) One final question, just for fun. Was O'Neil the right man for the job or was Bush simply the wrong president?

To: PROLIFE who wrote (522466)	1/11/2004 2:00:24 PM
From: Orcastraiter	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

LOL, PROLIE. Everything I said is true. When I said he may have had WMD, I was talking about before Bush attacked Iraq. It's quite well known that He had them in the 80's and early 90's. We supplied him with the stuff. And yes he used some of it up. Then there was the Gulf War. Bombing during that war took out some more of his WMD and his WMD programs. Then after the war inspectors destroyed more of his capability, and during the no-fly zone enforcement other suspected WMD facilities were targeted. There was no doubt that his capability for producing WMD was diminished. We diminished it. And now we have found no WMD. The bottom line is that Saddam was not an imminent threat. And since this was the reason given for attacking Iraq, it is now shown to be baseless. Now we hear from Paul O'Neil that Bush was preparing to invade Iraq in the first days of his administration. I think it is clear that Bush was predisposed to attacking Iraq long before 9-11. This administration has built it's policies on lies. and now these lies become ever clearer by the day. No sir the blood is on your hands. Not mine. Saddam could have been dealt with in other ways. War in Iraq was not needed for the security of the nation. What is needed is that same kind of effort to root out Al Qaeda...you know the folks that were supposed to be hearing from us? Untill Bush left a trail of crumbs for you wingers to follow. Connecting the dots to Saddam. You are one of the 7, no doubt. Bush's policies are bankrupt. He's gonna bankrupt this country with his madness. If we see another term with Bush the country will be injured deeply. Orca