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: Thomas A Watson who wrote (55650)	3/23/2008 3:50:37 PM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 543192

If you are worried about Islamic fundamentalism, then removing Saddam may have been unwise, since he was not an Islamic fundamentalist. I'm glad you see a positive finish for US security, but I've no idea how you get there, since the US intelligence services generally report much greater anti-American activities in the region. But it's nice to know you're positive on the issue. I certainly hope you turn out to be correct. I think it's unlikely, but it would be nice if you were. I've no idea how Clinton turns out to be responsible for 9/11, any more than Bush is. Terrorists happen- no matter who is in charge. Remember the marines in Beirut? Are we going to blame that one on Reagan? Seems to me you're going to have to. I guess that was Reagan out of his league. And of course daddy Bush neglected to take out Saddam- and that led to some problems, so that was HIM out of his league. And then there's Nixon- :-) I think that man was not only out of his league but occasionally out of his mind.