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: one_less who wrote (167621)	7/28/2005 3:40:44 PM
From: Sun Tzu	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

IMO, you contradict yourself too much. You seem to be saying that you did not believe reasons Bush gave for invasion of Iraq, but somehow you are not outraged at the lies that led to war. In another post you said you don't see an end in sight when it comes to the mess in Iraq. But you give no reasons then why we should have an open ended comitment to give blood and gold for it. Bush administration has produced (read labeled) more secrets than any other administration. Secrets and open society don't go together. What is more, this administration is too readily willing to use the letter of the law to hamper the spirit of democracy. Case in point is the treatment of anti-Bush protestors via "safety zone" who are forced to be so far away from Bush motorcade that neither Bush nor the media ever takes note of them. (do you really believe a real threat would carry an anti-Bush sign?) I see Bush as the best friend oil and coal industries ever had and as the worst thing for our environment. Most of his other "mistakes" can be undone, but not the damage he's brought to the environment. Is there anything more biased than WH editing environmental reports according to oil industry wishes? He brings about a regime that winks at torture and human rights abuse. And pushes for laws that allow the government to make people just disappear. Border security, imo, is chum change compared to above. Not that I thought Clinton was perfect or even good. Clinton's doctrine was far more aggressive than Bush's. But at least he did it in a smart way and did not cause as much damage...and yes, he left little crumbs for the people issues and did not dedicate himself so overtly to oil and defense interests.