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.

Strategies & Market Trends : Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: LLCF who wrote (41453)	11/19/2005 10:13:01 AM
From: Tommaso	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 116555

Although I have been banned from the "Politics for Pros" thread, I continue to be PM'd about my views there. The following is my latest reply to one of these and refers to a piece in the current "Economist," a conservative journal that supported intervention in Iraq: It's on page 36 of the current (November 19-25) issue. I have the print edition , as do most libraries, or you can glance at it on a newsstand. I would grateful if you would not revise what I say to fit your prejudices. What I said was this: "I think everyone, including George Bush, now agrees that Iraq was not in the business of producing nuclear weapons, long-range missiles, chemical weapons in large quantity, or biological weapons. None have been found. Also, there was no connection between the Iraqi government and Al Quaida at that time." I have not joined those who claim that Bush knew otherwise. I do say that he now knows otherwise, as does "The Economist": "Mr. Bush may not have consciously lied, but, egged on by Mr. Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, he made dreadful miscalculations. The WMD never materialised." and: "The Senate Intelligence Committee report suggest that the White House made repeated, if unsuccessful, attempts to persuade the CIA to find links between Saddam and al-Quaeda."

To: LLCF who wrote (41453)	11/19/2005 1:51:08 PM
From: NOW	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 116555

Isee...since they havn't been convicted or impeached thye are therfore not. to be considered as ghaving fostered great evil in the wrld... I was wrong you are not an apologistsimplyy ,naieve

To: LLCF who wrote (41453)	11/20/2005 3:02:59 PM
From: NOW	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 116555

oh yeah, washington is just a real hotbead of morality, ethics and integrity...we should all send our kids there to learn values dont you think? from yesterdays news:"I think this has the potential to be the biggest scandal in Congress in over a century," said Thomas E. Mann, a Congressional specialist at the Brookings Institution. "I've been around Washington for 35 years, watching Congress, and I've never seen anything approaching Abramoff for cynicism and chutzpah in proposing quid pro quos to members of Congress."

To: LLCF who wrote (41453)	11/21/2005 9:04:38 AM
From: Knighty Tin	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 116555

DAK, I was not talking just criminality or evil. I was talking about a bad President, and incompetency is part of the equation. The worst criminals are not indicted. Neither Harding nor LBJ ever had charges leveled against them, personally. It sounds like you and I are talking different issues. I consider Bush one of if not the worst President ever. Lack of accomplishment, again, fits into my criteria. If we're just going on sheer evil, he would be up there, but it would be different criteria.