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: Hawkmoon who wrote (174136)	11/4/2005 6:19:04 AM
From: jttmab	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Of course it is.. TO YOU!! Because you don't want to acknowledge the complicity of the Clinton Administration is this "alleged" manipulation of US intelligence you hypothesized occurred. Sorry. But I've made my comments on Tenet elsewhere, sic, he should have been tarred and feathered and ridden down Pennsylvania Ave. Not given the Presidential Medal of Freedom. Nominated by Clinton doesn't make the man automatically right or wrong. The Senate failed in their responsibility to adequately challenge the reasons for going to war. The Senators that failed to even go to the reading room were utterly irresponsible and that's as true for Democrats and Republicans. There may be others, but the only Senator I know of that has said that the Senate, as a body and he personnally failed in their responsibilties was Senator Byrd. But facts are stubborn things.. as are people like yourself who don't want to accept them... Again. Every piece of intelligence that the US gave to the UN to verify was found to be wrong before Bush committed forces. That is a fact and you have no proof to the contrary. How much brains does it take for Bush to say: Hey Tenet, if it's a slam dunk, then how come everything we've passed to the UN turns out to be wrong? Do you have anything that you could give to the UN that's right? Just give them one piece of intel that checks out. Is that too much to ask? Funny.. I looked at the act and could not find the word "prohibited" used there with regard to military force.... That only mention was that nothing in this act should be contrued as authorization to use force... ...And that makes sense.. because Clinton would have needed to go back to Congress (AS BUSH DID) for such an explicit authorization to use force.. Duh. Section 8 is a prohibition. That's why Bush had to go back to Congress because US of military forces for regime change were prohibited. If I followed your prohibited not found logic, I could have said ... funny, I don't find a "1998 Iraqi Regime Change Act." at all. What I find is the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998. BFD. So that brings to mind.. Did Clinton go to Congress for such an authorization when he launched Operation Desert Fox not more than a month after this act was passed??? Funny, I don't remember him doing that... Duh. That wasn't for regime change was it? Let me quote you "And I guess he can also be blamed for Clintons 1998 Iraqi Regime Change Act that he signed INTO LAW...". That was the topic. jttmab

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (174136)	11/4/2005 8:09:49 AM
From: jttmab	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

You can shop for soldiers overseas and send them to Iraq and Afghanistan. They are in need of under garments, especially socks, non-perishable good and hygiene supplies. Fowler says something as simple as baby wipes are important because soldiers don't get as many chances to bathe as they do when they’re back stateside. wspa.com!reports!topstories Excuse me, I don't mean to pry into your privacy. But could you confirm or deny that there is a shortage of underwear for our military in Iraq and/or Afghanistan? Hopefully the answer isn't classified. jttmab