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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: SilentZ who wrote (191383)	6/22/2004 2:45:00 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1573690

>Why is we can see that lying about BJs is wrong but you can't see why lying about Iraq is even more wrong? >And if you answer that Bush didn't lie, then my response is neither did Clinton. The difference is that the Dems haven't been able to railroad Bush into testifying under oath... Good point.......and they won't be able to so long as the GOP controls both houses. ted

To: SilentZ who wrote (191383)	6/22/2004 6:14:01 PM
From: steve harris	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1573690

Z, reThe difference is that the Dems haven't been able to railroad Bush into testifying under oath... If you take the time to learn about Iraq and Clinton and Congress in 1998, you will discover regime change due to Saddam and his WMD was decided upon before Bush became president. Bush's choice to go now was based upon best intelligence. You give Bush too much credit if you think he fabricated the pictures Powell presented at the UN. No, to say Bush is lying about WMD is inaccurate. Bush made a decision on the best information he had. So did Clinton in 1998 from his buddy Clarke. I would think is is no different than people being evacuated during a hurricane warning and then calling the weather service a liar and bitching because the hurricane didn't hit.