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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: John Carragher who wrote (128862)	4/10/2004 10:26:17 AM
From: Sam	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

this is news to me.. any reference on this? I just posted the article--you know what I know. It was to be a summary of what is going on , we knew they are were trying to bomb the United States. That is the way Condi characterized it. Not the commission members, though I am not sure if they have actually read the entire thing or not--do you know? Certainly they appeared eager to have the entire thing declassified, not just parts of it like the admin wants. This is a democrat effort to blemish Bush for the election(it appears to be working). It is a bipartisan commission. Republicans on the commission aren't exactly withering flowers. They will not permit it to be used as an anti-Bush organ, I can guarantee that. Not without a vocal fight. Too bad we are not looking forward. too bad we do not have democrats trying to support our troops vs tearing the country apart to get back into power at the cost of freedom for Iraq. Come on, John, I expect better from you than that. Democrats do support the troops as much as republicans do. What does that mean? It wasn't democrats that ignored military history and one of the top generals' estimate that 250,000 troops would be needed to maintain order in Iraq, it wasn't Democrats who planned (or didn't plan, as is obviously far more accurate) for this Aftermath, it wasn't Democrats who fantasized about parades in the streets and arranged for the photo op of Saddam's statue being pulled down, pretending that photo ops can create reality in an occupied Iraq like it appears to be able to among docile United States citizens. It wasn't Democrats who believed that only 30,000 troops would be needed by Sept. For ted Kennedy to call this vietnam where we lost so many troops is just alarming the general public and is very irresponsible. No, it is the Bush admin that has been incredibly irresponsible throughout this entire war. That and so much more besides, including but not at all limited to the prescription drug fiasco. Just think back to how they treated Shinseki or Zinni. Disgraceful.

To: John Carragher who wrote (128862)	4/10/2004 10:56:56 AM
From: Sam	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Democrats irresponsible? Or Bush admin? Part I. (April 09, 2004 -- 10:46 PM EDT // link // print) Putting out the fire with gasoline. From the AP ... The people of Fallujah carried their dead to the city's soccer stadium and buried them under the field on Friday, unable to get to cemeteries because of a U.S. siege of the city. As the struggle for Fallujah entered a fifth day, hundreds of women, children and the elderly streamed out of the city. Marines ordered Iraqi men of ''military age'' to stay behind, sometimes turning back entire families if they refused to be separated. ''A lot of the women were crying,'' said Lance Cpl. Robert Harriot, 22, of Eldred, N.Y. ''There was one car with two women and a man. I told them that he couldn't leave. They tried to plead with me. But I told them no, so they turned around.'' What does this sound more like to you? Southern Lebanon in the early 1980s or the West Bank in 2002? Nice choice, isn't it? Our troops have been placed in an impossible situation by a blundering leadership that laughed off the warning signs and friendly advice for a year until the situation blew up in their face. Awful. Unforgivable. -- Josh Marshall talkingpointsmemo.com