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 : World Affairs Discussion -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (3249)	1/12/2004 2:26:30 AM
From: ChinuSFO	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 3959

Hawk, you have asked several questions and they all pertain to Iraq. I have very consistently maintained that the Iraq war had other interests in mind except the interest of fighting terror. For many of us it was easy to see from the get go that this Administration wanted to attack Iraq. And now we have Paul O'Neill, a senior member of the Bush cabinet who has said it all. It is also coincidental that Colin Powell, just a few days prior to Paul O'neill also declared that he hasn't seen a link between Saddam and Al Qaeda. And then you have Mr. Kay a weapons inspector quiting the team searching for WMD. Must I say anything more? Bush can go and be the President of Iraq. We do not want him to be the President of the US especially when he had lied, not about sleeping with someone but about something which has cost American lives. Let him look in the eye of widows, orphaned kids, grieving parents, brothers and sisters of fallen heroes who sould have gone to Iraq. WE COULD HAVE LET THE UN DEAL WITH A LOCAL BULLY AND HIS TWO SONS. We should have dealt with terror in Afghanistan, in the mountains of Tora Bora and into Pakistan.