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 (185468)	4/21/2006 10:21:05 AM
From: jttmab	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Well, I guess we can discount you're being lazy since I actually went to the effort of documenting my assertions. Message 22376507 I guess that just leaves intellectually dishonest. But at least the "paper trail" exists clearly revealing your deliberate avoidance of reading the facts. Only in your own fanciful mind. Like many of the pathetic individuals who spend their time launching partisan attacks at the current administration, while going out of their way to defend the previous one. It's not clear what you're talking about wrt to this exchange current exchange between the two of us. In this particular exchange I have made no partisan attacks against this Administration, or Newt and I've made no attempts at defending the previous Administration with respect to the original post in this exchange. [ Message 22368516 ] It's all a figment of your imagination. Any such plan to overthrow the regime of Iran would be in violation of the Algiers Accords. I don't know whether or not Clinton or Newt believed the Algiers Accords were valid, but I do know that the current Bush Administration has argued in Federal Court that the US has not abrogated the Algiers Accords. I'm not bothered that Newt would have talked to the CIA about a plan to overthrow the Iranian regime and I'm equally not bothered whether the Clinton Administration/Richard Clarke would have been involved in any such discussions. Such things happen and one shouldn't be surprised. I can't get too troubled that Nixon supported the Pinocet regime. It's a fact of history. Along with Carter supporting the Shah of Iran, along with Reagan flipping over to support the regime of Saddam Hussein because we lost the supply of oil from Iran. There is a very long history of situational ethics by American Presidents that go a long way back. jttmab