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: Ann Corrigan who wrote (39377)	8/1/2004 12:55:19 PM
From: ChinuSFO	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 81568

There goes Bush again. Warning the nation to be on high alert because of an imminent attack from Al Qaeda. I thought he was telling us he was sending in troops into Afghanistan and Iraq so that he would rather fight the war on their streets than on the streets of the US. I wonder how he can claim that he is "making progress" on the war on terror and at the same time raise the terror alert before his own convention but not before his rival's convention. The United States and its allies won a resounding victory in Afghanistan in late 2001 and early 2002. The Taliban and al Qaeda were bloodied and weakened, but not beaten. Their strategy was to hide out, melt in to the population, bide their time, and regroup when the opportunity arose. We gave them that chance. Instead of a sustained campaign that kept the pressure on, the administration decided to open a "second front in the war on terror"--i.e., Iraq. So in the spring of 2002, the administration settled for the lowest common denominator in Afghanistan--a relatively stable and secure Kabul--and began shifting resources to the Persian Gulf to prepare for the invasion of Iraq. Was that a wise move? If yes then why do we go under all these terror alerts. Is this Bush accepting failure for his "war on terror"? Or is it Bush as usual, one who does not know what he is doing.