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 (35081)	3/17/2004 11:01:15 AM
From: Original Mad Dog	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793658

A good example of that is Winston Churchill's efforts to get the British to confront the Nazi threat in the late 30's. And that threat was more obviously something that had to be dealt with than al Qaeda in the 90's was. Clinton missed some opportunities, but it wasn't like Bush took office chomping at the bit to nail the Taliban and al Qaeda.

To: Lane3 who wrote (35081)	3/17/2004 2:34:29 PM
From: LindyBill	Respond to of 793658

But I still think that, had Clinton suddenly found this lightbulb and announced that the criminal paradigm was not sufficient for the challenges we faced so he was shifting gears, he would not have prevailed. We weren't ready for that It's all interesting speculation. War is a "Nixon in China" for a Democratic President. If Clinton had announced a "War on Terror," I think he would have easily prevailed. His party would have had to back him, and the Republicans would have also. There would have been a lot of "wag the dog" from the Republicans, but leaders lead. We will never know. I am sure it is Clinton's big regret. Best thing he could do for his book is to say so.