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: lorne who wrote (12069)	4/3/2004 5:50:43 PM
From: CalculatedRisk	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 81568

At the time of the invasion, I did not think there were any WMD in Iraq that were a threat to America. Neither did Hans Blix. You wrote: "I guess we can agree then that we all THOUGHT there were WMD in Iraq" Everyone of us knew, at the time of the invasion, that Iraq did not have Nuclear weapons (all of the Bush / Cheney claims had already been proven false). We THOUGHT Iraq might have mustard gas, but no means of delivering the gas (the drones had already been proven false, the claims of an al qaeda link were absurd from day one). This is one of the blunders of the Bush administration: they conflated nuclear weapons with mustard gas. Blix is referring to mustard gas, anthrax and some other biological / chemical weapons. I THOUGHT we would find some of these other weapons. I did not think that justified going to war ... there was no threat to America. And Bush was making another strategic blunder: pulling resources away from the real threat! This has been rehashed many times. Sorry to repeat my views, but I KNEW the Bush administration was screwing up when they invaded Iraq. Personally I think they knowingly misled America - that they lied.

To: lorne who wrote (12069)	4/3/2004 11:58:23 PM
From: cnyndwllr	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 81568

Lorne, it's not what "we" thought that counts, it's what the people thought who had the BEST information and knew the limitations and weaknesses of that information. Even more, it's what they decided to do with that information and how honest they were with their bosses; us. Given your belief that Bush acted in the best interests of American because he thought that if there "was the slightest chance that islam terrorists could get hold of WMD then they must be stopped no matter what the cost in popularity," I can understand your support for him. There are some real problems with that thesis, however. First and foremost was the CIA's analysis that said just the opposite. As you may recall, the CIA had said that Saddam was not crazy enough to arm terrorists with wmds but that IF WE INVADED, all bets were off and wmds might fall into terrorist hands. I didn't see how invading and occupying could have been seen as protecting America at that point in time and given what we know now, only the blind believe that an invasion was in the best interests of America. Please remember that the Bush crowd is very inbred and their family tree is big oil. You have, in effect, a group of people who have univision on world politics and that vision is seen through an oily windshield. Even more alarming is the fact that the leaders of the administration, with the exception of Powell, are all people who arrogantly disdain to give any credence, or even an ear, to contrary opinions. This is a very dangerous characteristic for people making complex decisions in a very fluid world. When you give them the benefit of the doubt and say that even if they were wrong, they were acting for the safety of Americans, remember that about the oil. Oil paid Junior's path into the Texas governor's office and it paid his way into the presidency. Forget the words and watch the actions. It's about oil and it always has been. Having said that, I don't believe his prime motive was profits for his inbred cousins and his family, I believe the prime motive was a view of world politics that saw oil as the most important geopolitical factor after the Soviets fell, along with the prodding and manipulation of those who really did see big profits in procuring and distributing Iraqi oil reserves. Kerry might not be a prince, but he would undoubtedly do better on fighting Islamic terrorism. The only things that Bush has done to fight terrorism are the obvious things and, by his aggressive and foolishly presented threats and actions in the Gulf region, he has lent total credibility to the Islamic terrorist's cause. The eggs for the next wave have been laid and there are a whole host of them that will soon hatch and spread the Bin Laden brand of terror. Hopefully Kerry and some smart people in a Kerry administration can start the process of neutralizing that tide of terror. Remember that in almost every instance that you want to look at the Bush administration made a mess of things. Start with the downing of our spy plane by the Chinese and all the bluster-back up-bluster fumbling diplomacy that had the Chinese screaming in fury. Go to the medicare fiasco. Take a look at how we handled the Kyoto treaty, regardless of how you liked the treaty. Look at how our European allies view the heavy handed way we treat our "allies." Ask yourself why those political leaders that support Bush are facing hostility at home that may result in new leaders that are not nearly as pro-American. The list is endless. When people screw up enough, it's time for new people and not excuses for them. Don't you think that when you have to find excuses for them all the time, they may not have the judgement to lead the world?