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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: michael97123 who wrote (144316)	8/28/2004 9:47:02 AM
From: jttmab	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

As you say "there must be some reason why both sides of the aisle seem to have gotten behind this "adventure." ~"You're either with us, or you're with the terrorists." I would expect both sides of the aisle can see where that would put them. It seems highly likely that every candidate for the Iraqi elections [maybe Jan 2005] will run on a platform of getting the US out of Iraq. It's inconceivable that an Iraqi running on a platform of keeping the US in Iraq has any shot at winning. [Though it's possible to win the Power Lotto, on any given day.] jttmab

To: michael97123 who wrote (144316)	8/28/2004 9:57:41 AM
From: GST	Respond to of 281500

<As you say "there must be some reason why both sides of the aisle seem to have gotten behind this "adventure."> As to why both sides went along with this war, the reasons are troubling in my view. The vote came up in the context of mid-term elections and the Democrats calculated their chances of winning would be better if they were not seen to be opposing Bush on foreign policy in Iraq. It was a shallow, self-serving sellout IMO. It is the one thing that sticks in my mind as an issue that Kerry cannot resolve -- it was shameless politics at its worst.