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: zonkie who wrote (27313)	6/1/2004 9:55:07 PM
From: Brumar89	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 81568

(1) You're saying Bush should have assassinated Osama prior to 911. Maybe so, though I note that would have been a sharp departure from the policy in place when he took office. However, I know that almost all the hijackers were in America when Bush took office. Assassinating OBL prior to 911 might well have triggered an earlier attack. And if that had happened, I strongly suspect most of the present Bush-critics would be claiming the AQ attack on us was a response to Bush's reckless assassination of OBL 2) This is contrary to the 911 Commission's interim report on this subject. 3) This is a continuation of 1) above - implying Bush should have assassinated OBL via cruise missile. I've already dealt with this. 4) Nonsense. The WOT had been on the back burner for years. 5) That leaves out the plan they developed to take the fight to AQ. Of course, that hadn't yet been implemented but then the government is slow moving and 8 months not a long time. 6) Again nonsense. The real barrier to turning up evidence of the upcoming attack was the wall between law enforcement and intelligence operations Jamie Gorelick erected for the Clinton administration. I guess you could argue they should have dismantled that earlier. Ah well. 7) The 8/7 memo didn't contain any intelligence which could have led to stopping the attack. 8) No, it turns out the short position in the airline stocks only looked large percentage wise because short positions are usually very low. The Brits tracked down the short sellers and as I recall, it turned out to be some smaller competitors of the airlines. BTW I've lost my link to this info. 9) This is nothing but an attempt to disparage people whose position you disagree with on the basis of their ethnic background. If the charge were true BTW, the US would have gone after Iran first. 10) This simply isn't true.