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 : GOPwinger Lies/Distortions/Omissions/Perversions of Truth -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: rrufff who wrote (26625)	10/2/2004 9:52:51 AM
From: jttmab	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 173976

I believe that Kerry, Clinton, Gore or Lieberman would be exactly where Bush is today, making the same mistakes, making it up as he goes along. Given that each one of them would have their own cabinet.... You believe that every one of those "Presidents" would have rejected Gen. Shinshecki's advice that several thousand troops were need to keep the peace and would have subsequently forced Shinshecki You believe that each one of those President's [and their cabinets] would have accepted the "intel" provided by Chalabi and his friends regardless of the doubts expressed by other Departments. You believe that each one of those Presidents would have had only the Oil of Ministry protected and would have the military ignore looting. You believe that each one of those Presidents would have rejected the calls by the weapons inspectors to continue inspections. Did I get that right? jttmab

To: rrufff who wrote (26625)	10/2/2004 11:56:28 AM
From: bentway	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 173976

<The US was attacked and is striking out in defense> As was correctly pointed out by Kerry, Iraq did not attack us. Invading Iraq doesn't defend us, it diverts us from the real enemies.

To: rrufff who wrote (26625)	10/2/2004 3:02:02 PM
From: upanddown	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 173976

I believe that Kerry, Clinton, Gore or Lieberman would be exactly where Bush is today, making the same mistakes, making it up as he goes along. There is some truth in what you say, up to a point. I think any president would have concluded that, after 9/11, target number one was the country that had sheltered Al Queda, Afghanistan. The tactical error to let Bin Laden escape from Tora Bora also could have happened under any president. Here is where we part company. A president with the right judgment might have decided to hotly pursue Bin Laden, into Pakistan if necessary. He would have kept relentless pressure on the real enemy. He would have enlisted an vast international coalition to wage a silent, covert war against radical Islamic terrorism around the globe, including places like Chechnya and Indonesia. There is no evidence that any president other than Bush would have virtually abandoned that effort and diverted enormous resources to Iraq. Another president would not have been dragging along his father's baggage while surrounded by influential aides exhorting him to go after Saddam NOW. That mistake in mid-2002 was the most critical of the Bush presidency. He was not a prisoner of events at the time. He created his own path thru his own decisions. It didn't have to happen since it was irrelevant to a war on terrorism and eventually proved to be counter-productive to that effort. If Bush had made the right decision then, he would be coasting to a second term in a wartime environment. That wrong decision has instead created a horrible mess and convinced me that he simply does not have the right stuff.