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: michael97123 who wrote (221225)	2/26/2007 3:51:12 PM
From: cnyndwllr	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Micheal, re: "Btw think you are to harsh on hillary...I think she believed in the intel as did alot of decent folks--me included and i think many of us believed in the competence of cheney, rummy etc. But that's precisely the problem. Even if the intelligence on WMDS in Iraq had been 100% accurate, going to war the way we did, when we did, and before we'd tried other methods of resolving the conflict was just knee-jerk foolish for reasons that run so deeply that even "competence" after the fact couldn't have changed the outcome. Knee-jerk foolish was acceptable in a New Yorker so angry and upset that he couldn't see the big picture but it's not acceptable in a woman who may someday become president of the U.S. In addition, for anyone with access to the information that H. Clinton had to fail to understand the limits of conventional military power and how that would play out when we unleashed anarchy in Iraq, is unforgivably careless, or stupid. Sure, she had plenty of company but in the White House we need a better thinker with an innate understanding of the very real power of opposing ideas. We've seen what happens when we have a President and a majority party in Congress who are woefully and happily ignorant of such things and we can't afford another term of that. And your point that she probably wouldn't have gone to war may be correct. The fact is, however, that she apparently never saw the debacle coming until long after we committed and that she continued to mouth support for the "war" long past the point when it should have been obvious that the "mission" was undoable. And even then she failed to take a strong stand while our men and women in uniform and tens of thousands of Iraqis were paying a horrible price. That's not good leadership and it's certainly not brilliant, courageous leadership. In any event, it's questionable whether she's even electable. And that's a big thing for me because the one thing you can be sure of is that her Republican opponent will be an even greater hawk. But, even if it's McCain on the R. ticket, they'll recognize America's growing distaste for the war and cloak their hawkish stance the same way Lieberman did in order to get reelected. But I believe it will be there, waiting for decision time to rear it's ugly head and scream us farther down the stinking road of littered bodies and failed policies. Ed