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 : Sioux Nation -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: SiouxPal who wrote (34852)	8/27/2005 8:42:59 PM
From: CalculatedRisk	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 362801

Sheehan. Hackett. Boxer. They speak with conviction. When Hackett attacks Bush it is on the false premises for the invasion of Iraq and the incompetent handling of the occupation. Then if the media takes him to task for his harsh comments, he has the facts to back him up. Rangel's comments sounded petty. Read Gary Hart's piece this week: Who Will Say 'No More'? Message 21642793 The DEMS have to stay focused: 1) the invasion of Iraq was on false pretenses. 2) the occupation was handled incompetently. 3) Bush's economic policies have led to higher gas prices, worsening budget and trade deficits, and a hollowing out of the middle class. Those are the main talking points. Examples: Downing Street memo is part of the "false pretenses" as is the Plame Affair. For fixing Iraq and the economic problems, the DEMs can offer solutions when Bush asks for them.