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 : The Environmentalist Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: zonkie who wrote (6033)	3/20/2006 3:59:20 PM
From: longnshort	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 36918

Are you smart enough to analyze your comments? 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. 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. jdn