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 : New FADG. -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (2423)	7/17/2007 10:51:55 AM
From: KLP	Respond to of 4152

Brumar posted this yesterday on LB's thread. If this is true, then the CIA is even worse than most of us thought. With all the cuts in the 90's, and all the chicanery of the last 10 years, it is indeed a miracle we have any intel at all. SABOTAGE: Rowan Scarborough Talks About his New CIA Book by Human Events (More by this author) Posted: 07/16/2007 Message 23706524 and this morning, this suggests there might be direct talks with Iran. How talks can be held with a country with terrorist gangster type "leaders" is hard to imagine.... U.S. Ready for Direct Talks With Iran Jul 17 10:22 AM US/Eastern WASHINGTON (AP) - The United States is ready to hold new direct talks with Iran on the deteriorating security situation in Iraq, where the Bush administration accused Tehran of supporting Shia insurgents, the State Department said Tuesday. "We think that given the situation in Iraq and given Iran's continued behavior that is leading to further instability in Iraq, that it would be appropriate to have another face-to-face meeting," spokesman Sean McCormack told reporters. He said no date for the talks, which would be held in Baghdad, had yet been arranged. breitbart.com

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (2423)	7/17/2007 12:44:47 PM
From: GST	Respond to of 4152

How can you possibly respect this guy?? <"Q Thank you, sir. You have spoken passionately about the consequences of failure in Iraq. Your critics say you failed to send enough troops there at the start, failed to keep al Qaeda from stepping into the void created by the collapse of Saddam's army, failed to put enough pressure on Iraq's government to make the political reconciliation necessary to keep the sectarian violence the country is suffering from now from occurring. So why should the American people feel you have the vision for victory in Iraq, sir? "THE PRESIDENT: Those are all legitimate questions that I'm sure historians will analyze. I mean, one of the questions is, should we have sent more in the beginning? Well, I asked that question, do you need more, to General Tommy Franks. In the first phase of this operation, General Franks was obviously in charge, and during our discussions in the run up to the decision to remove Saddam Hussein after he ignored the Security Council resolutions. My primary question to General Franks was, do you have what it takes to succeed? And do you have what it takes to succeed after you succeed in removing Saddam Hussein? And his answer was, yes. "Now, history is going to look back to determine whether or not there might have been a different decision made. But at the time, the only thing I can tell you, Wendell, is that I relied upon our military commander to make the proper decision about troop strength. And I can remember a meeting with the Joint Chiefs, who said, we've reviewed the plan. I remember -- and seemed satisfied with it. I remember sitting in the PEOC, or the Situation Room, downstairs here at the White House, and I went to commander and commander that were all responsible of different aspects of the operation to remove Saddam. I said to each one of them, do you have what it takes? Are you satisfied with the strategy? And the answer was, yes."