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: Orcastraiter who wrote (19570)	5/1/2004 7:31:11 AM
From: Chas.	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 81568

History has shown us that "only the strong survive" we have two types of Arab in Iraq and most of all other Arab countries... the educated (about 1%) and the ignorant (about 99%)... a hundred years ago they were all nomadic goat herders or desert wanderers... the few that were hand picked by the English and the French in the early 1900s to rule their little fifedoms and along the way discovered oil have kept the masses ignorant and politically motivated to their own ends. Since it has become obvious that the situation has grown out of control, ie 9/11.... the USA finds itself in a position of self defense that turned into overt pre-emptive action. the best way to handle the Arab radical Islamic fundamentalist terrorists is to do so covertly with secret, clandestine operations. unfortunately beginning with the Jimmy Carter administration and his policy wonk creep Adm Stansfield Turner(then head of CIA),they, as leftist liberals began to emasculate and completely dismantle a well working CIA, we have yet to completely rebuild, rethink and re-mindset that organization, it is a systematic change that is required and everytime we start to get a handle on it we get a jerk like Wm Clinton and his leftist liberal buddies to set it back again.... the Global World Politic presents a very tough environment for survival of a countries "Way of life", "Standard of living",and continuation of life as we know it here in "good ole USA" to be a survivor it calls for tough measures, not white wine and brie, we cannot afford to have Madeline Albrights and Bill Clintons giving North Korea Nuclear plants for the promise of being good guys....it doesn't work that way... nor can we afford to have a Saddam Hussein running around loose with his clearly stated ME objectives..... so here we are......and there is more to come.... can we prevail...? regards

To: Orcastraiter who wrote (19570)	5/1/2004 10:42:58 AM
From: ChinuSFO	Respond to of 81568

Oval Office failure By Scot Lehigh April 23, 2004 BOB WOODWARD'S best Oval Office anecdote is telling. And yet, more revealing still is what doesn't take place in "Plan of Attack," Woodward's detailed new book about the Bush administration's decision to go to war with Iraq. According to Woodward, on Dec. 21, 2002, George Tenet, the CIA director, and John McLaughlin, his deputy, went to the Oval Office to run through the CIA's presentation making the case that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. When it was done, George W. Bush had a quizzical look on his face. " `Nice try,' Bush said. "I don't think this is quite -- it's not something that Joe Public would understand or would gain a lot of confidence from.' " Chief of staff Andrew Card, too, was underwhelmed, "worried that there might be no `there there.' " The president then turned to Tenet and asked: "I've been told all this intelligence about having WMD and this is the best we've got?" Tenet, Woodward writes, "rose up, threw his arms in the air. `It's a slam dunk case' . . . Bush pressed. `George, how confident are you?' " Tenet: "Don't worry, it's a slam dunk." What we have, then, is a president who, with the critical decision on war pressing hard upon him, had gotten a look at the CIA's evidence that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction and found himself somewhat dubious about the agency's case. So here's the question: Where was the gimlet-eyed follow-up, the hard-nosed executive evaluation, the painstaking dissection of the evidence that any commander in chief should insist upon before deciding on war? There's precious little evidence of that in Woodward's book. Indeed, the picture that emerges is of a president less concerned with flyspecking the intelligence in determined pursuit of the truth than with making the strongest possible case to the world that Iraq had WMD. ...contd. boston.com