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: Steve Lokness who wrote (56042)	3/25/2008 1:00:17 PM
From: Thomas A Watson	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 543528

The President's duty first is to protect Americans. I see the elimination of saddam clearly required. I see the elimination of saddam and restructuring of Iraq politically as a foundation in winning the war on terrorists of islamic cults. The current situation is centered well on the main target and is a great success, unless Americans say we run way you win, we lose. Or as it should be called the Democratic Party Surrender Dance.

To: Steve Lokness who wrote (56042)	3/25/2008 1:11:24 PM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 543528

Wasn't his original reason mostly aimed at "Iraq is a threat to the US"? That gives him a problem, since it clearly wasn't. He had to change focus quickly, or admit he was wrong. whitehouse.gov So Iraq had and was producing chemical weapons (wrong). It was trying to obtain nuclear weapons (wrong). It was arming terrorists in the region, but BFD- who isn't over there? So that's not a very good reason to invade. Then he mentions Sept 11- even though Iraq had nothing to do with that (is it any wonder Americans are confused?) And then he talks about threats to America from the other side of the Earth- even though Iraq clearly wasn't one- not to American on US soil. Poor Mr. Bush. I'm sure he prayed nightly they'd find a smoking chemical weapon in Iraq. Poor Mr. Bush. Many raise the issue of why now? Why attack Iraq now? Bush tells us why: "because it gathers the most serious dangers of our age in one place. Iraq's weapons of mass destruction are controlled by a murderous tyrant who has already used chemical weapons to kill thousands of people. This same tyrant has tried to dominate the Middle East, has invaded and brutally occupied a small neighbor, has struck other nations without warning, and holds an unrelenting hostility toward the United States." Ooops. But there are no WMD's. Well, hmmm, that argument is not going to work anymore. How urgent is it? "Some ask how urgent this danger is to America and the world. The danger is already significant, and it only grows worse with time. If we know Saddam Hussein has dangerous weapons today -- and we do -- does it make any sense for the world to wait to confront him as he grows even stronger and develops even more dangerous weapons?" Well gosh, we were wrong about those weaons we "knew" he had- hmmmm, ok, that urgency thing isn't going to work anymore. And here's another winner- why attack Iraq now? Why because of 9/11 which it had nothing to do with. Of course! That makes sense, doesn't it? "Some citizens wonder, after 11 years of living with this problem, why do we need to confront it now? And there's a reason. We've experienced the horror of September the 11th. We have seen that those who hate America are willing to crash airplanes into buildings full of innocent people. Our enemies would be no less willing, in fact, they would be eager, to use biological or chemical, or a nuclear weapon." Sept 11th- the reason to do anything you want no matter how illogical. Bravo Mr. Bush. What a legacy.