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: kumar who wrote (147181)	10/7/2004 4:44:33 AM
From: Dr. Id	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Well, Kumar, I wouldn't have sat looking like a deer in the headlights in a room full of kindergartners. I suspect that I would have gotten up and immediately tried to get more information. And, in reality it doesn't matter what I would have done. I'm not the President! The President is supposed to be capable of reacting in a time of crisis. This President runs. He did it when it was his time to fight in Vietnam in a war that he supported, and he did it on 9-11.

To: kumar who wrote (147181)	10/7/2004 9:24:26 AM
From: michael97123	Respond to of 281500

A thought. Bush has an opportunity to diffuse both the wmd mess and lack of honesty charges once and for all in fridays debate. I have read the cia report about iraq and for me it can be of great help to the bush campaign if he meets it head on. A few talking points below. 1. Saddam fooled everyone about wmds including his own generals so it was logical to believe wmds existed. 2. In spite of that and in spite of mixed bag that is now iraq it is good that saddam is gone re: WOT because sanctions were clearly being violated and some time in future saddam would have started causing trouble in the area. 3. RE: supposed allies. Even when war was on, french, germans, russians are chinese were all violating sanctions. There are probably other reasons as well but if the above is stated reasonably and calmly and without rancor, bush will have gone a long way to dispel the fears of the american public. The Washington Post i understand has an editorial that defends the admin in a similar way today, i understand. I have not read it as of yet. IF bush can pull this off the democrats in general and kerry in the debate face the possiblity of being judged as shrill, nasty and unfair to the president. Cheney may have been a lineman holding back the kerry offense. Bush needs to be more than cheney's Darth Vader/dark side--he needs to be optimistic, honest and transparent. Whether the republican politocracy can see any of this is in itself debatable. mike