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 : Right Wing Extremist Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JDN who wrote (52961)	3/18/2006 10:46:34 AM
From: ManyMoose	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 59480

That's the most concise description I've seen. It's so simple. The left just refuses to acknowledge it.

To: JDN who wrote (52961)	3/18/2006 10:58:18 AM
From: PROLIFE	Respond to of 59480

Good post, JDN.

To: JDN who wrote (52961)	3/18/2006 1:51:09 PM
From: longnshort	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 59480

can I steal that? I'll give you credit

To: JDN who wrote (52961)	3/18/2006 9:30:10 PM
From: J_F_Shepard	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 59480

re:" He honestly believed, as did nearly THE ENTIRE WORLD that Iraq was a CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER and HE ACTED." Ridiculous!! Is the "entire world" a member of the "Coalition".....Uzbekistan, Latvia, , etc etc.... And after Afghanistan, he should have rested on his laurels....the world would be a better place

To: JDN who wrote (52961)	3/19/2006 5:52:03 AM
From: GROUND ZERO™	Respond to of 59480

Absolutely brilliant post!!! GZ

To: JDN who wrote (52961)	3/20/2006 2:13:03 AM
From: PartyTime	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 59480

>>>Are you smart enough to analyze your comments?<<< I'm actually more interested in analyzing yours--lol. >>>Bush didnt need Iraq to be a "War President". He was WILDLY popular after 9/11 and his POSITIVE actions against Afghanistan resulting in overthrow of the Taliban with extremely low American casualties. He could have RESTED on those laurels, inserted 100k troops in Afghanistan and spent the time chasing Bin Laden, saved a bunch of money, probably had next to nothing in casualties.<<< Indeed, had he done the above he would have done the right thing. But he also would be sharing in that effort with a worldwide coalition and especially the United Nations, much like Clinton did with Bosnia. Interestingly, I don't believe Clinton ever got the tag "war president" for his military actions in Bosnia. Anyway, had Bush done what you suggested above, he wouldn't truly be considered a "war president." But you leave out the important fact that there is more than sufficient reference to support Bush, et. al., planned on invading Iraq before 9/11 happened, even if it hadn't happened. So Bush was planning on becoming a "war president" and would certainly use this to his political advantage--near elections. This is precisely what he did. And Iraq, taking down Bad Guy Saddam, was perfect fodder for his [Rove's] plan. Remember, everyone--folks on the left; folks on the right--hated Saddam. Bush couldn't find a better target to gain a "war president" designation, thus shedding the question of legitimacy concerning how he got elected and making him appear stronger both in congressional elections and his reelection. And, of course, he and Cheney both being oilmen, their tea leaves showed them that invading Iraq was a sure win-win, both politically and economically for those on his inside economic track. It was definitely a bold power move. And although I knew it then--you folks at least retrospectively know it today--the invasion was a foolhardy action and one conducted not for the good of the nation. Our children are still today dying as a consequence to this decision! By the way, Bush's threat to boycott--pre-9/11--the August Worldwide Conference Against Racism did not help the US gain understanding from the Muslim world. This action helped to fan flames and Bush, throughout the MidEast, was perceived like a bully in a bar looking for a punch to throw. >>>He honestly believed, as did nearly THE ENTIRE WORLD that Iraq was a CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER and HE ACTED. Its really that simple. Whether or not Iraq was a clear and present danger we can debate, but Bush had every reason to believe so.<<< That's what he says, but the facts don't lead to supporting such a statement. First off, you're forgetting that virtually the entire world opposed the invasion by numbers of three to one, or more, in nearly every nation, including those who got economically bribed into supporting the Bush invasion. None of the Middle Eastern nations felt Saddam was a threat to them, and he certainly was no threat to the US. In fact, he was thoroughly contained both by the sanctions and by the no-fly zones, etc. Hey, look at it simplistically. If PartyTime of SI knew there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and that there were no Saddam/Al Qaeda links how can you possibly say "intelligence" supported a different viewpoint? Heck, I didn't even have benfit of the Presidential Daily Briefing (neither did the Democrats, by the way). The fact is the "intelligence" was cherry-picked and fed to a highly cooperative American media (see Judy Miller, FoxNews etc.). And read Colin Powell's somber post-war reflections! Futhermore, read below: washingtonpost.com * Key US Evidence on Iraq called Fake by IAEA washingtonpost.com counterpunch.org washingtonpost.com abcnews.go.com fff.org * Career Diplomats Resigns in Protest smh.com.au fas.org rense.com oneworld.net. * 25 CIA veterans oppose war truthout.org In conclusion, if Bush had reason to believe Iraq was a danger to the US, than this means that Bush is a puppet president and doesn't know what he's doing, that special interests are actually in control of his presidency. By the way, I should correct my remark stating that Bush wanted to be a "war president." In actuality, it was his handlers who wanted him to become a "war president."