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: jttmab who wrote (200029)	8/29/2006 8:22:52 AM
From: GST	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

It is indeed rare that anything is "all one persons fault". I had no opinion about Bush when he was elected. I wanted to see what he would do and did not believe Gore was up to the job. In my view, Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld bear full responsibility for the debacle of a horrible policy badly implemented. I do not say this for ideological or party affiliation reasons. I say this because of what they did, how they did it and why they did it. They are fully responsible. The fault I would put on the Democrats is for not standing up to them and laying down their political lives over this issue. The Democrats behaved as spineless, calculating cowards for not oppposing this invasion. But at the end of the day, it was Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld in the driver's seat, and this mess is entirely their fault.

To: jttmab who wrote (200029)	8/29/2006 10:07:54 AM
From: Ichy Smith	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

It isn't amazing at all. Most of the time, it isn't possible to calmly discuss the present situation because the whacko element screams that it is all Georges fault and on and on. So you respond by saying it was Clinton's fault? No I was saying that Clinton had 8 years and didn't catch Bin Laden, George hasn't had 8 years, but, know what, it may be because he's hard to catch. Now it is said he may be in Pakistan, I don't think George should invade Pakistan The world of politics is apparently binary. Good vs. evil. And everything has to be put in one box or another. Democrats are good or evil depending on where you sit. Republicans are good or evil, depending on where you sit. Okay if that is your position, it seems to me that Presidents are people, and that people make mistakes. As far as I can Remember Saddam was continually rattling his sabre. I was not sure invading iraq was a great idea, and yet once the US was there, I did not and do not see how the US can leave. but my suggestion that perhaps they are timing things to coincide with Presidential elections got no response. Why not? because the little minds have an agenda, to pillory the president of the United States. There could be another explanation. You scoped out a 1/4 chance that a random event could fit your timing profile. How many presidential elections did you look at and how many events did you evaluate? Best I could tell, you considered the USS Cole and 9/11. The World Trade Center bombing in Feb 1993 doesn't fit your theory. The 2000 Millenium attacks don't fit the theory. That would include the LAX plot and the USS The Sullivans plot. There were the attacks on the US embassies in Africa in Aug 1998. That doesn't fit your theory either. Then there's the most current London to US plot on the five year anniversery of 9/11. Obviously, that doesn't fit your theory either. I am sorry, but I was fascinated at the idea that the President in the period that I believe he is called a lame duck president is actually a liability. Perhaps your experience differs, but it is actually a 2 in two hit. It only works, the conditions only work when the sitting president is being replaced by the other party. Because Clinton and Bush each got a second term they had everyone in place. There are some changes, but most of the people are their in their jobs, and they have some clue what is going on. So if the Democrats win, in the next Presidential Election, and I don't know if it would hold true for a Republican, but if the Democrats win, the chaos in handover needs somehow to be controlled. That is my theory. and it is only a 9 month long window of opportunity. Do you see now why it is only possible when they change Presidents and parties. And that is not a swipe at the Democrats, if the democrats are aware it may happen, and the republicans are aware it can happen, it can be prevented. I've posted on multiple occasions on the abysmal record that Israel has on human trafficking [per the US State Department]. I can't get anyone on the right to agree that's a bad thing. Go figure. I have never heard of trafficking charges against israel. I have seen slavery charges against Islam, but never against israel.