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 : Don't Blame Me, I Voted For Kerry -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Brumar89 who wrote (5595)	3/7/2004 11:34:40 PM
From: jlallen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 81568

Absolutely....and this is easy to see unless you are a Bush hating moron or have bought into the silly demolib talking points....

To: Brumar89 who wrote (5595)	3/8/2004 8:15:18 AM
From: ChinuSFO	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 81568

Bush went after Osama and if Osama is still alive, which I doubt, he is in hiding, not bragging on videotapes about the latest attack on America I believe your point is about the "war on terrorism" which includes the capture of Osama. Well, the attacks in Iraq continue with 6 rocket attacks as late as yesterday. About these attacks, Bush has said that he would rather have these attacks offshore than on US soil. Saying so is an admission that he has not succeeded in wiping out the terrorists. Simple question: has the capture of Saddam reduced or increased the incidences of terrorist strikes in Iraq. The attacks in Iraq in fact have increased. Even the Administration has said that the attacks are Al Qaeda style attacks. Where have they come from? There were no Al Qaeda in Iraq to start with. Bush put Saddam Hussein out of power, while Kerry would have left him there due to lack of French support. Making regime change in Iraq a priority in the "war against terrorism" is a total misstep. Why Saddam? Where are his WMDs, where are his links to Al Qaeda terrorists? Not a single one of those 19 terrorists were Iraqis, so why Iraq. Bush ran out of reasons and finally says he had to be removed because he was a brutal dictator? Say what? Sadam is the only brutal dictator? Say again Mr. President. And you call Kerry being on both sides? He did this because of Bush's resolve in Iraq. That's based on Libyan leader, Kaddafi's own statements, by the way. Utter non sense. You have not been following the activities of the Indian intelligence activities for the past 2 years. Bush would have marched his army into Pakistan if he wanted to. But the world would have opposed his move. Hence Bush just could not order his troops into other sovereign nations when he failed to prove to the world that Saddam had no WMDs and no links to Al Qaeda. After all that is the very premise that he told the world he was sending troops in. And then when he had nothing to show to the world, he made the US a laughing stock. He lost the respect for himself and for the US. The French newspapers made a mockery of Bush. And then to prove to the world how international cooperation produces results, they got Libya to surrender their nuclear program. The Indian intelligence along with the IAEA and other nations of the world such as France were successful in convincing Gaddafi. It has nothing to do with the US military which remains over committed in Afghanistan and Iraq. Remember, that the world knows the US military does not have the capability to open up two more fronts in Liby and N. Korea at the same time. Bush had to bow down to world pressure. The world did not allow Bush to become a wild elephant on a rampage. Bush's efforts are courageous and visionary. With a nation that has been weakened economically? Even US industrialists have lost their faith in the leadership of this President and are taking jobs overseas. They see no leadership here and so why put their money and business in the US?