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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: gao seng who wrote (189361)	10/4/2001 10:18:38 PM
From: rich4eagle	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

What the Fker?

To: gao seng who wrote (189361)	10/4/2001 10:25:59 PM
From: goldworldnet	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

Pitiful, so much hatred and the US is air dropping food to Afghan refugees. Who else is more generous than America? And where else are women less abused? * * *

To: gao seng who wrote (189361)	10/4/2001 10:31:28 PM
From: Thomas A Watson	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

THE BILL'S COMING DUE Clinton's Legacy He didn't do enough to stop terrorists. BY RUSH LIMBAUGH Thursday, October 4, 2001 12:01 a.m. EDT Since the Sept. 11 massacre, there have been numerous press reports about Bill Clinton's attendance at funerals, visits to the rescue site, and his other activities as a former president. What the media have largely overlooked is the extent to which Mr. Clinton can be held culpable for not doing enough when he was commander in chief to combat the terrorists who wound up attacking the World Trade Center and Pentagon. If we're serious about avoiding past mistakes and improving national security, we can't duck some serious questions about Mr. Clinton's presidency. Osama bin Laden already had the blood of Americans on his hands before Sept. 11. He was reportedly behind the World Trade Center bombing that killed six; the killing of 19 soldiers at the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia; the bombings of the embassies in Tanzania and Kenya, which killed 226 people, including 12 Americans; and the attack on the USS Cole at Aden, Yemen, killing 17 seamen. Mr. Clinton and his former national security adviser, Sandy Berger, said after Sept. 11 that they had come within an hour of killing bin Laden when they launched cruise missiles against his camps in 1998. (Mr. Clinton also ordered the destruction of a pharmaceutical plant in Sudan.) Many saw this attack as a diversion from domestic embarrassments, because it took place only three days after his grand jury testimony in the Paula Jones case. On Sept. 24, National Review Online published a report by Byron York that added considerable weight to this last charge. Mr. York spoke recently to retired Gen. Anthony Zinni, who had been U.S. commander in the region. Although he supported the cruise missile attack, the general revealed it was a "million-to-one-shot." "There was a possibility [bin Laden] could have been there. . . . My intelligence people did not put a lot of faith in that." His recollection is a far cry from the version of Messrs. Clinton and Berger. Which is accurate? On Sept. 13, the Associated Press disclosed that "in the waning days of the Clinton presidency, senior officials received specific intelligence about the whereabouts of Osama bin Laden and weighed a military plan to strike the suspected terrorist mastermind's location. The administration opted against an attack." The possible attack was discussed at a meeting last December, which was prompted by "eyes-only intelligence" about bin Laden's location. A military strike option was presented at the meeting. There was debate about whether the intelligence was reliable. In the end, the president decided against it. The day after AP's story, Hillary Clinton gave a different explanation of events to CNN. She said that in the last days of her husband's administration, he planned to kill bin Laden, but that his location couldn't be pinpointed: "It was human assets, that is, people on the ground, who provided the information. My memory is that those assets proved unreliable and were not able to form the basis of the plan that we were considering launching." Exactly what "eyes-on intelligence" was provided to Mr. Clinton in December? And just how reliable did the information have to be to merit a military strike? When Mr. Clinton ordered an attack on bin Laden's camps in August 1998, Gen. Zinni said that it was a "million-to-one shot." A partial answer can be found in a Sept. 27 report by Jane's Intelligence Digest, whose sources "suggested that previous plans to capture or kill [bin Laden], which were supported by Moscow, had been shelved by the previous U.S. administration on the grounds that they might end in humiliating failure and loss of U.S. service personnel." As a Jane's source put it: "Before the latest catastrophe there was a distinct lack of political will to resolve the bin Laden problem and this had a negative impact on wider intelligence operations." Jane's claimed that the fundamental failure to deal with al Qaeda was due "to a political reluctance to take decisive action during the Clinton era, mainly because of a fear that it might derail the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. This was "combined with a general complacency in Washington towards warnings that the U.S. itself (as opposed to U.S. facilities and personnel abroad) might be targeted." President Bush is now leading a world-wide war against terrorism, focused presently on bin Laden, al Qaeda, and their Taliban sponsors. It has been widely noted that the U.S. is handicapped in this war by a lack of good "Humint"--human intelligence--about the terrorists. Here again the Clinton administration is culpable. In 1995 CIA Director John Deutsch imposed complex guidelines that made it more difficult to recruit informants who had committed human-rights violations. Therefore, while the Justice Department has been able to use former mobsters to get mobsters (e.g. Sammy "the Bull" Gravano, who killed 19, was the government's key witness against John Gotti), the CIA has been discouraged from recruiting former terrorists to get terrorists. This has made infiltrating groups like al Qaeda virtually impossible. We have no choice but to address the policies and decisions, made at the very highest level of our government, which helped bring us to this point. To do otherwise is to be irresponsible and unprepared in the face of a ruthless enemy, whose objective is to kill many more Americans. lynx -dump opinionjournal.com tom watson tosiwmee

To: gao seng who wrote (189361)	10/5/2001 12:47:14 AM
From: KLP	Respond to of 769670

You will appreciate this article, gao....That woman has just set the women's movement back a century, IMO... Thobani's disgusting statement L. IAN MACDONALD Montreal Gazette Wednesday, October 03, 2001 The moral-equivalency crowd was out in force Monday at a feminist conference in Ottawa where Sunera Thobani said United States foreign policy was "soaked in blood." Thobani, a former president of the National Action Committee on the Status of Women, also called the U.S. "the most dangerous and powerful global force unleashing horrific levels of violence." So that's it. The Americans got what was coming to them. Six thousand people are dead under the rubble of the World Trade Centre. Guilty of going to work in the morning, they obviously deserved their terrible fate. Hundreds of thousands more have lost their jobs, and it's all their fault. Perhaps Thobani could explain her views to the widowed spouses, orphaned children, broken families and grieving communities, including dozens in Canada. Perhaps she could elaborate her position to the people who have been thrown out of work, including thousands of Canadians. Fry Said Nothing Sitting beside Thobani, as she made this intellectually disgraceful and disgusting statement, was Hedy Fry, the secretary of state for the status of women. Did Fry get up and leave the hall in disgust? Did she summon reporters and disavow Thobani's remarks? No, she simply did not join in the applause and a standing ovation. "People in this country are allowed to say what they want," she later told the Commons. "I did not support it. I did not applaud it. I got up and left immediately following. I stand in the House right now and say I condemn the speech." There is no doubt that the U.S. made some foreign-policy choices in the 1980s that have since come back to haunt it, notably supporting Iraq's Saddam Hussein against Iran, and the mujaheddin against the invading Soviets in Afghanistan. But from there to suggest that America's hands are soaked in blood, or that it is the most dangerous force in the world, is simply odious. But wait, there's more. Thobani wondered who felt the pain of "the victims of U.S. aggression." The victims of aggression are precisely the women of Afghanistan who suffer under the unspeakable cruelties of the Taliban theocracy, a tyrannical and repressive regime that publicly executes women in soccer stadiums. Who is speaking up for them? Not the women at the Ottawa conference, dripping with a sanctimonious sense of Canadian superiority. Such offensive smugness could only be found in a country such as ours, which has lived for a half a century under the security blanket of the United States, which also buys half of everything we produce in the private sector. The Americans don't need or deserve to hear, at a conference funded by government ($80,000) and attended by a minister of the crown, that their hands are soaked in blood. Unfortunately, there appears to be a constituency for this intellectual garbage, at conferences attended by the radical left, at town halls staged by the CBC and on campuses such as Concordia University - all funded by taxpayers. Fortunately, Canada and the U.S., unlike Iraq and Afghanistan, encourage such dissent among our fundamental freedoms of speech. Bad Taste We even encourage free speech when it is demonstrably misinformed and repulsively in bad taste. But as an American judge once observed, freedom of speech does not extend to yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre. Of course, what happened in New York and in Washington can never happen here, and if it did we would expect the Americans to come to our aid. We would be outraged if they said that, in our smugness, we got what we deserved. Can't happen here? This just in from France, where Le Monde has reported on the trial of 24 members of one of Osama bin Laden's terrorist cells. The incriminating evidence includes the details of a chilling plan to explode a bomb on each of Montreal's métro lines if terrorist demands were not met. The plot, now confirmed by Montreal police, was apparently foiled only with the arrests. These are the bad guys. They murder thousands of innocent people. They have experimented with biological terror. And if they could get their hands on nuclear weapons, they would use them. Whereupon, in the warped logic of moral equivalency, it would be the fault of the U.S. for inventing them in the first place. - L. Ian MacDonald's e-mail address is imacdonald@generation.net. canada.com