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 : The Castle -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tejek who wrote (2666)	2/9/2004 2:43:20 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 7936

Really, Tim, the NRO lost me when one of their articles suggested we might have to declare war on France. The article I quoted was on Townhall not NRO. As for NRO I seem to remember some satirical or humorous article that talked about invading France, but even if it was a serious proposal (rather then a joke, a piece of satire, or a proposal for a response in a hypothetical and very unlikely situation) I don't see how that should eliminate ideas from NRO from serious consideration even if it does eliminate NRO from the list of sites you would ordinarily read. If the New York Times, Washington Post, or LA Times posted some extreme op-ed piece would you assume every article that was written for those papers in the future was worthless crap not even worth the effort to refute? Its one thing to say that you don't take Coulter seriously because of some of her statements. Its another to not even consider the writings of Buckley or Sowell or George Will as anything other then garbage written by people with questionable integrity just because they happen to be on the same web site as other articles that you find false or objectionable. The article you posted starts out by saying that someone has to be rabidly anti Bush to suggest the president lied. You all just don't get it. There is a growing number of Americans who once were pro Bush who think he lied about WMDs......and they are angry. If you don't start off from the anti-Bush perspective then there isn't enough evidence that the statements about the Iraqi WMD where lies. NRO and Townhall can point out all the people who thought that Saddam might have WMDs but that does not change the fact that a responsible, competent, intelligent president would have let the weapons inspectors do their job before throwing this nation into a war that could go on indefinitely and cost us lives and billions of dollars. The inspectors doing their job for another month or 6 would not have caused more certainty about Iraqi WMD then there was from the many years of inspections and attempted inspections before the most recent round. Also the war has and will have positive consequences as well as negative. Only an ardent Bush supporter could ignore that possibility. Who said anything about ignoring it as a possibility? Yes it is a possibility but there is little or no evidence that its a reality. The evidence that it is reality is less then the evidence a year or two ago that Iraq had stockpiles of WMD. I suspect Mr. Bush will go down in infamy for this misdeed. I wait for evidence of an actual misdeed before making statements like that. Tim