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 : Don't Blame Me, I Voted For Kerry -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: ChinuSFO who wrote (76833)	6/4/2006 2:15:55 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 81568

Bush has decided to approach Islamic terrorism in a way which is different than that of Clinton. Did he get any result? Did he succeed in getting Osama and Zawahiri after having expended the collosal amount of US taxpayer dollars? Yes, I think he has gotten quite a lot of results. Afghanistan is no longer run by the Taliban, even if they are not gone entirely. Osama bin Laden no longer has free run there. AQ Khan's Sam's Club for nukes has been exposed and Libya is not going to get a bomb. Al Qaeda has been severely disrupted and has not managed another major attack on the US in five years. Iraq is a lot better off than it was - and yes, I say that knowing what a mess it is now. It was a police state with 5 million exiles and 300,000 in mass graves and no hope for the future before. But CNN didn't cover it, so you didn't notice. All these cries of "Bush didn't manage to catch Osama, so he didn't do anything" seem to me fundamentally unserious. Bush is fighting a war in the real world. Wars are risky, they have setbacks as well as victories, and often it's hard to sort out what is really happening until much later. Sitting on the sidelines and carping that Bush is a disaster because he didn't manage a quick, complete, and painless victory is just not an adult evaluation of the situation, I'm sorry.