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 : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Paul Kern who wrote (38942)	6/28/2007 5:35:07 PM
From: epicure	Respond to of 543470

I don't think that works again. Events like that rarely work the same way twice. This time it looks like Bush didn't protect us. Sure, he can try to blame someone else, but he's been telling us for years how he's keeping us safe- now you know, and I know, that terrorism is sort of random, and not even a police state keeps you safe from it, but not everyone thinks like that, and Bush certainly hasn't put out that kind of PR.- so a knew attack will just make people more sure we're on the wrong track. And God help Bush if a new attack is tied to Iraq, because then it will be clear that while in 2001 Iraq was not involved, he's made it the kind of place where terrorists come from. And then the media will eat him for breakfast, lunch and dinner, and his carcass hangs like an albatross around the necks of the republicans.

To: Paul Kern who wrote (38942)	6/28/2007 5:46:55 PM
From: Dale Baker	Respond to of 543470

That's the only thing I can think of, but it would also make the Republicans look like crap as the guardians of the Homeland against the forces of Evil. Kind of like Katrina on steroids. Of course, we'll have to find some "terrorists" who aren't incompetent half-wit wannabes with no money, weapons or explosives. They seem to be pretty thin on the ground since 9/11.