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 : High Tolerance Plasticity -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: RWS who wrote (7955)	9/15/2001 6:42:46 PM
From: Razorbak	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 23153

Do you pick headlines for the NY Times? I think the title Salon used was: "Commission Warned Bush." Nevertheless, IMHO, this is the most salient admission: Neither Hart nor Rudman claim that their recommendations, if enacted, would have necessarily prevented Tuesday's tragedy. "Had they adopted every recommendation we had put forward at that time I don't think it would have changed what happened," Rudman says. "There wasn't enough time to enact everything. But certainly I would hope they pay more attention now." "Could this have been prevented?" Hart asks. "The answer is, 'We'll never know.' Possibly not." The fact is that this kind of stuff is impossible to prevent as long as these terrorist networks (forget about the cells for a moment) are allowed to operate, aided and abetted by nation states and sympathetic financiers, with total impunity. Razor

To: RWS who wrote (7955)	9/15/2001 10:48:16 PM
From: Raymond Duray	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 23153

Hi RWS, I watched part of the Friday (as I recall) proceedings of the Committee on Foreign Relations on C-SPAN in which Rudman and Hart participated. There was no "I told you so" expressed as far as I could see, simply a sincere interest in solving a very vexing and intransigent problem, i.e. how to protect what now is obvious to all - our fragile society/culture/economy. There was no smugness, there was no insouciance (unlike the smarmy posts of a present correspondent who shall remain unnamed) and no arrogance expressed. Just this: how do we solve the problem. It was refreshing. And not a thing like the portrayal in Salon. Which, as I take it, has a bias. But on the other hand: couldn't one make the argument that the notion that the lead bureau to deal with terrorism ought to be the emergency management group is just about the most ridiculous concept imaginable? I mean, my God, the idea is to prevent this crap, not to have a bunch of well meaning mop up crews solve the problem. How utterly ridiculous that we'd use a humanitarian bureau to do the work that requires a "dirty tricks" department. Apparently the Republicans see this as only applicable to the party in opposition and not to our real enemies. What a fatuous view of the world. Not to mention, a dangerous one for mere citizens. To my Republican friends, if it appears that I'm heaping ridicule on your plan, or lack thereof.... Sorry, seems to be what it deserves. Of course, the sinister, Machiavellian view is that the sacrifice of 5,000 citizens is worth it, if we can have a wonderful adventure in the Arab world and gain a whole new dimension for the American empire. Could those in charge be that callous? I dunno. Please, shoot the messenger.... -Ray