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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Alighieri who wrote (181232)	1/21/2004 11:35:21 AM
From: i-node	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 1573545

"We urge you to turn your Administration's attention to implementing a strategy for removing Saddam's regime from power," says the letter sent to Clinton. "This will require a full complement of diplomatic, political and military efforts. Although we are fully aware of the dangers and difficulties in implementing this policy, we believe the dangers of failing to do so are far greater. We believe the U.S. has the authority under existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf. In any case, American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council." However, in an ironic twist, Clinton rebuffed the advice saying his administration was focusing on the worldwide threat posed by the terrorist group al-Qaeeda and it’s leader Osama Bin Laden, who was responsible for the 9/11 terrorist attack and who Iraq war critics say the Bush administration should have been focusing on after 9/11 instead of Saddam Hussein. 1. Clinton clearly was NOT focused on the threat posed by Al Qaeda, else he would have taken bin Laden when he was offered up. As we now know, Clinton simply said, "No, thanks, we don't want him". 2. It should come as no surprise that the same people who today believe that Saddam's removal will eliminate the risk of future terrorist acts against us, ALSO believed it five years ago. These people are not fickle and do not change when the wind-direction changes. The Left still hasn't seen why Saddam's removal makes the United States a safer place; and honestly, the blame is with the administration for not adequately articulating the underlying rationale. Few people will listen to what Richard Perle has to say on the matter, or even Thomas Friedman (and they have to cut through the liberal nonsense in his columns to get to his beliefs on the matter). It just seems so obvious.