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.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: ManyMoose who wrote (90610)	12/3/2004 8:22:34 PM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

Bush has failed to act also- at least as regards Bin Laden- and saying that somehow not getting Bin Laden made the invasion of Iraq necessary, or that it logically follows, is just nuts. Bin Laden is a separate issue from Iraq. 9/11 is a separate issue from Iraq. Bush acted in some mighty strange ways, AFTER 9/11 and still failed to get bin Laden and Clinton failed to get Bin Laden before 9/11 (which according to so many folks "changed everything"). So I can't see much difference- except Clinton didn't invade a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 so bravo Clinton. MY point is- after 9/11 (which changed "everything") Bush failed to get Bin Laden too. My point is that at least Clinton didn't invade a country which had nothing to do with 9/11, and terrorism directed at the US. I think I prefer one missile lobbed at the Chinese (who also had no connection to 9/11) to invading a country which had no connection to 9/11. But I love how you roll all these issues up and try to make them seem logically connected. Bring it on.