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 : THE WHITE HOUSE -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bill who wrote (4699)	5/16/2007 1:11:11 PM
From: DuckTapeSunroof	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 25737

"But I correctly characterized what he said. Because I heard him say it." No. I believe you are incorrect in that. The word you attributed to him was the word that FIRST SHOWED UP in Rudy's inaccurate characterization of what Paul had actually said. (So, naturally, now that the words "caused 9/11", used ONLY BY RUDY, NOT BY PAUL, have sunk into everyone's subconscious, that is what people think that Paul actually said....) But he didn't. In his reply, he covered a little more ground in explaining what he was trying to get at, when he stated that HE AGREED with the comments made by the C.I.A. about 'blow-back' from the policy choices we (or any...) country makes. To put it a little more crudely, (but possibly in words that more people will understand), when one 'screws-around in other people's back yards... overthrowing governments, installing pet dictators, establishing bases, etc., it is only natural to expect that that will increase the odds of people wanting to screw-around in your back yard, too.' A fairly simple concept, and easy to understand. No doubt though --- if they had asked Paul the exact same question that they asked of the other nine, (about a 'terrorist group, with training camps in a West African country, supported by the government there, that attacks us via suicide bombings in malls...'), instead of trying to KEEP THE QUESTION FROM HIM, they would have heard an answer like "You hit the camps, AND the government that protects them, HARD... and you hit them right away, declaring war on the nation aiding and abetting there...." (On a somewhat related note, I was struck by the inanity of some of Mitt's comments about supposedly 'moderate Islamic States'. Perhaps he meant the Saudi Monarchs - funding radical Wa'habbist Madrassas to this very day, and the corruption from which al Qaeda was birthed... or Pakistan - sponsors of the Taliban, and providing sanctuary for Taliban and al Qaeda to this very day (as well as being nuclear outlaws and proliferators!)... or Authoritarian Egypt... or the Iranian Theocracy... or Lybia, etc., etc.?) A slick suit with a lot of too facile 'answers'.