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: Lane3 who wrote (29787)	2/15/2004 9:27:19 PM
From: LindyBill	Respond to of 793637

Better than a hair trigger... Took us a year to pull the trigger on Iraq. Dems have ordered air strikes on production facilities before Cruise missiles are not going to cut it in Iran. It will take a raid in force. By that I mean we go in, clean out the problem, and leave. No occupation. That is the only way we can make sure nothing is there. I think we have a good chance of getting Iran out of the Nuke business by going to the brink. The Muslims will believe Bush. They won't believe Kerry. And that is dangerous. Remember, the Cuban missile crisis was caused by the fact that Kruschev perceived Kennedy as weak after meeting him. I have been thinking about the character issue lately. Didja notice how many people who know Kerry don't like him? Contrast that with Bush, who is liked by most of those who know him. An asshole can be a good President, I suppose, but it's not a good sign. Especially when you are dealing with a Senator who has never has run anything bigger than an office staff.

To: Lane3 who wrote (29787)	2/15/2004 11:39:47 PM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793637

Sullivan hits the same points I was just posting. Kerry has avoided having to say what he would do. And he has been on both sides of the issue. KERRY ON IRAQ: It's high time the front-runner was sat down and peppered with serious questions about what his policy now is. The Washington Post yesterday ran an excellent editorial dissecting Kerry's record of dizzying, shall we say, nuance: In 1991 he voted against the first Persian Gulf War, saying more support was needed from Americans for a war that he believed would prove costly. In 1998, when President Clinton was considering military steps against Iraq, he strenuously argued for action, with or without allies. Four years later he voted for a resolution authorizing invasion but criticized Mr. Bush for not recruiting allies. Last fall he voted against funding for Iraqi reconstruction, but argued that the United States must support the establishment of a democratic government. Mr. Kerry's attempts to weave a thread connecting and justifying all these positions are unconvincing... To say the least. I'd say his vote against the $87 billion is a huge liability in the coming campaign. Kerry needs a serious proposal on Iraq that isn't designed purely to attack the Bush record. So far, I haven't seen one.