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: Nadine Carroll who wrote (236113)	7/13/2007 1:15:07 AM
From: Wharf Rat	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

"the Bushies forced us to give them false reports" and the NYT eats it up, and suddenly Bush is painted as simultaneously so Machievallian as to take the country to war on a lie, and so stupid that instead of picking some Gulf of Tonkin incident" I'm glad you finally understand the world. I was telling everybody this was another Tonkin Gulf in 12/02. Too bad it took you 4 years to figure it out.

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (236113)	7/13/2007 1:19:53 AM
From: c.hinton	Respond to of 281500

re bush. if the shoe fits .....

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (236113)	7/13/2007 6:44:25 AM
From: jttmab	Respond to of 281500

I guess in your world it's "sour grapes" when you don't have amnesia about what was believed about Saddam in 2003 by Republicans, Democrats, Americans, Britains, French and German intelligence services...and oh yes the "slam dunk" CIA, the same CIA that didn't have a clue about Saddams nuke program in 1991 or Libya's in 2003. BTW. You also forget that just prior to the war that there were a number of people that were noting that all that great US intel wasn't panning out with the inspectors. Er... the Niger document was a forgery....the chemical weapons van wasn't a chemical weapons van... etc. ad nauseum. Nothing panned out, yet Bush just forged ahead like everything was verified. Just think, in spite of that there are people that actually think there's some "proof" that Iran has a nuke program. We don't have anywhere near the "proof" on Iran that we had on Iraq. You would think people would learn but they don't. Bush says that Iran claims that they want a nuclear weapons program. Iran never has made that claim. But that doesn't stop Bush does it? Do you think that Bush doesn't know that Iran never made that claim or is he just simply lying through his teeth? jttmab

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (236113)	7/13/2007 6:58:30 AM
From: jttmab	Respond to of 281500

Is it really all that useful in rehashing all the old stuff once again? They're doing some of that in Congress, but they aren't changing anyone's mind there either. Let's look to the future. Are we staying in Iraq or are we leaving? If we leave, the phrase "Losing is not an option." is going to be expunged from US vocabulary. What will replace it? "We won, the Iraqis lost." "We were winning militarily, but didn't have the political will." "The military was fighting with one hand tied behind their back." "We need to stop Iran, which is/was the real threat all along." etc... What do you think the new rhetoric will be if we pull out of Iraq? jttmab P.S. I'm predicting. "We won, the Iraqis lost." to be the dominant phrase.