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 : Moderate Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sully- who wrote (13689)	11/13/2004 7:33:14 PM
From: TigerPaw	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20773

Of course Bush had to attack Afganistan first. That was a no brainer for any leader. Bush shortchanged the county by putting up only a token fight in Afganistan and diverting all the anti-terror resources for his oil grab in Iraq. TP

To: Sully- who wrote (13689)	11/13/2004 8:42:26 PM
From: Michael Watkins	Respond to of 20773

If you read my message I didn't claim Bush was ready from the get go to go into Iraq, but that others in the administration were. I don't think Bush has any original ideas in his head; but if he did, he kept them quiet. The bottom line remains, the US is in Iraq, on his orders. And for no, good, reason. Bush's complicity will come out in due course, but not for decades. As a relevant example, in the 80's no one would have believed that Reagan was perfectly content to supply Saddam Husayn with materials and US support even though Reagan was completely aware - long before the public became aware - that Saddam was using chemical weapons.