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 (41916)	5/3/2004 10:33:51 AM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 793640

As far as pro-American, if you legitimately think that a pullout, even a surrender, is in America's best interests, then you're pro-American. Not while pretending that it isn't a surrender and it has no costs, which is what Koppel did, and what all the cut-and-runners are doing. The very least I would expect is some acknowledgement 'that we're going to have to take our lumps and leave'. But no. They think this is a game, that it has nothing to do with WOT, that there is no WOT, even though we are fighting AQ in Iraq right now, that surrendering in Iraq wouldn't move the next round back to Riyadh and Amman and New York. That's really been my criticism of most of the left from the beginning. Their policy discussion is not that of adults. They can point out the downside of Bush's policys (or wildly exaggerate them) while pretending with a straight face that there is some magical right solution on their side. Let the UN handle it, or something.