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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: michael97123 who wrote (29493)	2/14/2004 7:22:08 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793955

So what was your reaction? Mine was to identify the enemy and its facilitators and take necessary action to prevent 9/11 from ever happening again. Funny, that was mine, too. Another attack on the US is unacceptable, althought it is almost impossible to be 100% certain. <<7. Tone of the administration--swagger/arrogance/unilateralism/cowboy/Ashcroft/Rumsfeld I GRANT YOU THAT ONE>> This is not, not, not the way to prevent that. It is practically an open invitation for every pipsqueak with a grudge to try to take us down a peg. And core to that is preemption I submit that at the core is making us a less attractive target. Part of that could be targeted preemption, but assigning preemption as the core is too narrow and dangerous a focus. I understand why you and others who are so thrilled with Bush's "foreign polity" might be concerned the the Dems might offer up something limp-wristed as an alternative. But the above is not a good approach, either, to meeting our shared objective. If Bush's "foreign policy" looks good to you, it is only in comparison to a straw man.