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 : Moderate Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: E. T. who wrote (7079)	2/19/2004 12:17:27 PM
From: Dale Baker	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 20773

Part of the fantasy that with enough determination (and deficit spending) the US can eradicate everyone on the planet who could ever conceivably dislike us enough to organize armed resistance or attacks. Everyone, everywhere for all time. Then the "war" will be over. Or a new administration will be elected that knows how to manage chronic problems in the overall context of our international relations and national security - without the hysteria.

To: E. T. who wrote (7079)	2/19/2004 12:22:23 PM
From: zonder	Respond to of 20773

Possibly. Although I have to say the two are slightly different, for drug users, for the most part, have no intentions to blow up places and killing American citizens. "War on drugs" is a ridiculous exercise in trying to control people's intake of mind-altering plants and chemicals. There is no real war, because one side is not fighting. The people using drugs are well aware that they are not harming anyone aside from, possibly, themselves, and hence feel justified in doing it. As such, the state is losing the "war". Miserably. In "war on terrorism", there is an actual enemy determined to attack the US and if at all possible, kill its citizens and harm its interests. However, the enemy is not "terrorism", it is the people using this method to attack America.

To: E. T. who wrote (7079)	2/19/2004 12:44:56 PM
From: TigerPaw	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20773

<font color=navy>This is a lesson that was not lost on Karl Rove and George W. Bush. If they could recast George as the opponent of a power as great as the Ring, then the rather ordinary Dubya could become the extraordinary SuperGeorge, rising from his facileness to prevail over supernatural powers of evil. alternet.org Bill Clinton had a similar chance, but passed on it for the good of America and the world. When bin Laden attacked us in the 1990s – several times – in an attempt to raise his own stature in the Islamic world, Bill Clinton dealt with Osama like the criminal he was. He enlisted Interpol and the police and investigative agencies of various nations, brought in our best intelligence agents, and missed bin Laden in a missile-launched assassination attempt by a scant twenty minutes (bringing derisive howls from Republicans that he was trying to "wag the dog" and deflect attention from the Monica investigations). As Clinton left office, he and the CIA were tightening the noose on bin Laden, and his National Security Advisor, Sandy Berger, told me that when he briefed his successor, Condoleezza Rice, he told her to put bin Laden and al Qaeda at the top of her priority list and thus finish the job the Clinton administration had nearly completed. As we know, when Rice, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Bush, et al. finally came up with the priorities for their new administration, al Qaeda had been replaced by tax cuts for Bush's rich donors on the "A" list, and didn't even appear on the "B" list.</font> <font color=blue>It's been</font><font color=red> 885</font> <font color=blue>days since Bush said he'd catch Osama bin Laden 'Dead or Alive!' </font> TP