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: Nadine Carroll who wrote (77117)	6/14/2006 1:58:01 PM
From: Cogito	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 81568

>>If you say, "I will go to war only as a last resort," and you are 95% sure that nothing short of war will work, everything else having been tried already, is that a lie?<< Nadine - Yes, that's a lie. I think that if he believed everything short of war had already been tried, and that war was now the only option in July of 2002, then that's what he should have been saying. Don't you think that might have sent a different kind of message to Saddam? Maybe the man would even have stepped down. We're talking about a man who has made a very big deal out of being a man of his word. Are you telling me his word should be ignored in this one case? Furhtermore, I don't believe that everything else had been tried already when Bush first started the drumbeat about Iraq. In February, 2003, there were weapons inspectors on the ground in Iraq who felt they were making progress and wanted to have more time, Bush told them to clear out. He needed to get bombing. (My bet is that he knew they weren't going to find anything, and then he would be left without his biggest excuse for the invasion.) When France, Germany and Russia would not go along with him, Bush told them to take a hike. This is trying every other option? Incidentally, the Iraq drumbeat began in earnest in July of 2002, after several months in which the headline stories in all the media were about Enron, which didn't reflect well on the Bush Administration. Once Bush started talking about invading Iraq, Enron seemed like a dull story, and fell out of the public consciousness. Coincidence? And why did virtually the entire Senate (and House) roll over like that? Could it have had something to do with the fact that Bush and all his mouthpieces kept confabulating a connection between 9/11 and Iraq? And that anyone who dared question the case for war was branded as dangerous, unpatriotic, crazy, or treasonous? I agree that they were gutless, and should have stood up to him, but I also think that Bush's propaganda machine was way out of bounds, and had created an environment of fear and panic. He bears the responsibility for that. - Allen