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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: i-node who wrote (408733)	8/21/2008 1:15:43 PM
From: HPilot	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1575391

But McCain still faces a problem in that Bush has not articulated a reason for our being there, This has been articulated at almost every press conference! Were you sleeping?

To: i-node who wrote (408733)	8/21/2008 1:57:07 PM
From: tejek	Respond to of 1575391

Nobody can argue with some simple facts -- - Saddam would still be in power without the Iraq war; - Saddam would still be killing 5,000 or more Iraqi people each month; - There would be no hope of removing Saddam or his dictators-in-waiting sons. - We would still be locked into monitoring the no-fly zones, dealing with UN corruption in sanctions, and our nation would still be being led around by the nose by this bum, INTO PERPETUITY. The problem with your reasons and why Bush didn't try to frame it the way you have is because there are a number of places in the world that have a very similar scenario......Burma, Darfur, Congo, Tibet, etc. So then, the question becomes.......why Iraq? And the only logical answer......Bush is the oil president. Not good for Republicans.