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 : Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. President or Pretender? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tejek who wrote (550)	8/12/2007 4:25:12 PM
From: longnshort	Respond to of 1090

Helen Thomas ??? you have to be kidding me. No wonder you think the NY Times tells the truth

To: tejek who wrote (550)	8/12/2007 6:49:10 PM
From: MJ	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1090

"Conservative Republicans were unhappy when President Nixon made his surprise journey to hard-line communist China in 1972. But the move was mostly applauded as a diplomatic breakthrough, leading to better relations between the two nations" Really? I question the accuracy of Thomas's claim that the Conservative Republicans were unhappy with Nixon's going to China. She needs to name those to whom she is referring. On the other hand I agree that Nixon's mission to China was applauded as a diplomatic breakthrough. President Nixon had a very legitimate diplomatic reason to go China. China was supporting the war in Vietnam with weapons throughout the Vietnam War. Nixon made that decision as President. The irony is---- that the liberals pulled out their long knives to get rid of President Nixon who could have ended the Vietnam War with dignity. Instead,President Nixon was put under pressure for political party reasons distracting the Nixon administration from the job he needed to do--------and that was overseeing and ending the Vietnam War with dignity. 35 ears later-----we are in a different war, a war on radical Muslim worldwide terrorism. Once again we have the "party politics"------many of the Democrats bashing President Bush at every turn that he makes in the process of war and peace. This only serves to undermine America much as Nixon was undermined by party politics. Neither Hilary or Obama is now President, they are speaking hypothetically. Hilary , regardless of every thing I dislike about her, is not usurping the power of President Bush and his administration to make the decision on what leaders to meet with and which ones not to meet with--------Obama on the other hand has ventured into a realm of diplomacy for which he is not elected. This war against terrorism is too important to let the 'party politics of this election' undermine decisions made by President Bush and his administration. That is what happened to Nixon and the Vietnam War-------time to put these party politics aside and respect the legitimate right of President Bush and his administration to deal with this war on terrorism and any overtures to other nations. The next President cannot procede on hypothetical promises. This war and any pockets of peace must be fought and negotiated by President Bush and his administration now. mj