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: Bearcatbob who wrote (72890)	6/18/2008 5:41:30 PM
From: Dale Baker	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 543262

That's what I expected, a heavily partisan piece drawing broad conclusions. "Con Coughlin is a British journalist and author. He is currently the executive foreign editor of the Daily Telegraph[1] and is the author of various non-fiction books relating to the Middle East, and the War on Terror. He is considered one of the world's leading right wing authorities on the Middle East.[2]" Let's put this on the long list of stuff we disagree with. For me, reaching back 28 years to try to tie a knot that doesn't exist is just too gauzy to bother with. I made the list of Bush-McCain continuity policies very clear, and I am sure there will be more as time goes on.

To: Bearcatbob who wrote (72890)	6/18/2008 7:07:03 PM
From: JohnM	Respond to of 543262

First - the issue I was responding to was the effort to tie Obama to Carter as somehow desperate while the effort to tie McCain to Bush is so righteous. Bob, if you wish to make the effort to tie Obama to Carter, please go ahead and make the specific claims. As for the Bush-McCain ties, they are quite explicit, based on the continuation of policies that have failed. The real problem with the Carter comparison is that because of the times are so different, it's transparently only a political ploy. Simply doesn't work.

To: Bearcatbob who wrote (72890)	6/19/2008 8:42:50 AM
From: ChinuSFO	Respond to of 543262

The flip side of what the Times commentator writes is to view a more recent event which is the "The making of Osama." Nixon and Reagan pursued a policy which endeavored to derive a opportunistic advantage of the Islamic world's opposition to the aethist Communists. It was very much like the policies of imperial Britain where "Divide and Rule" was the way to go. So we can theorize ourselves to death and advance all sorts of theories. But the fact remains that today America stands humiliated and the object of ridicule in the world. Yes indeed, it is the premature boast "We will get Osama dead or alive". It is the ridiculous suggestion by America to the world that if we get Saddam we will reduce the threat of terrorism and we have a jailbreak by Taliban instead. That should suffice.

To: Bearcatbob who wrote (72890)	6/19/2008 10:21:41 AM
From: Suma	Respond to of 543262

I absolutely hate the conclusion of that article. It is so Right Wing that I gag. Otherwise, I fear that Osama bin Laden and his chums will be rubbing their hands with glee at the prospect of Mr Obama becoming the 44th President of the United States of America. The FEAR FEAR factor again. I seriously doubt that Bin Laden and his chums... will care who is president. The plan is Jihad.... Nothing will change that with the exception POSSIBLY that we get out of the middle east and give the Arabs back their land without having infidels there.