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: mph who wrote (182505)	2/13/2004 12:02:03 PM
From: Alighieri	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1575781

Note that the preemption doctrine was specifically embraced by virtue of the vote to authorize the President to go forward. That is the only way to rationally evaluate that vote. If the notion of preemptive strike under any circumstances were not embraced, the vote would have been "no." The vote authorized bush to take action...it was not a vote on the doctrine, which, as I recall, was decried openly by folks on both sides. Here, let's say that Bush lied. Why exactly did he do that? You hear all kinds of allegations but none that pass muster when critically evaluated. In other words, there has to be a really rational explanation for why a sitting President would deliberately dupe the American public, commit the lives and limbs of our military, and cost the country potentially billions of dollars. This is not a trial. This is a debate to determine if the president acted prudently, pragmatically, wisely...the jury is the american people, the prize is the WH, judging by the recent news about pakistani control of WMD, the byproduct is basically America's integrity. Al