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 : Impeach George W. Bush -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: bonnuss_in_austin who wrote (8661)	12/17/2001 11:11:29 PM
From: Mephisto	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93284

Karl Rove sure makes the most of his position. Not too long ago he was talking to Intel while he owned stock. I wonder what has been going on between Rove and Enron.......

To: bonnuss_in_austin who wrote (8661)	12/17/2001 11:19:15 PM
From: Mephisto	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93284

U.S. Scuttles Germ War Conference Move to Halt Talks Stuns European Allies Elisa D. Harris, the National Security Council's director for nonproliferation throughout the Clinton administration, said that despite fears about the use of anthrax as a weapon, "the Bush administration has blown up an international meeting aimed at making it more difficult for countries to acquire these biological capabilities." By Mike Allen and Steven Mufson Washington Post Staff Writers Saturday, December 8, 2001; Page A01 An international conference on germ warfare disbanded in chaos and anger last night after the United States sought to cut off discussions about enforcing the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention. The 1972 treaty, ratified by the United States and 143 other nations, bans the development, stockpiling and production of germ warfare agents -- but it has no enforcement mechanism. The purpose of the conference, held in Geneva, was to discuss the progress of a group that has been trying for six years to negotiate legally binding measures to enforce compliance. Yesterday, the final day of the three-week conference, the United States stunned European allies by proposing to terminate the group's mandate. Convinced that the action would turn the conference into a failure, organizers suspended international discussions until at least November 2002. The breakup of the meeting renewed complaints from Europe that President Bush was acting unilaterally and not heeding concerns of the nation's allies. That complaint was common early in his administration, but had been muted as Bush assembled an anti-terrorism coalition after the Sept. 11 attacks. A State Department official said the Bush administration believed the enforcement protocol under discussion would not prevent rogue nations from acquiring or developing biological weapons if they were determined to do so. "If the conference had continued, there was a danger that continued negotiations would have undermined our concerted efforts to strengthen the convention," the official said. Administration officials said the United States remains committed to countering the threat of biological weapons and will consult allies on the issue in coming weeks. Tibor Toth, a Hungarian official who was the conference's president, said delegates decided to suspend their work for a year instead of bringing the meeting to an unsuccessful end. "The differences between positions seemed to be irreconcilable, at least in the time remaining today," he said. "The draft final declaration was 95 percent ready." John R. Bolton, the U.S. undersecretary of state for arms control and international security, accused some signatories to the treaty -- including Iraq and Iran -- of having already violated it. "I wish we could have continued talking, but it was obvious that we would not reach an agreement. There were just too many areas of disagreement," Bolton told Reuters in Geneva. "A cooling-off period will be a good thing." Elisa D. Harris, the National Security Council's director for nonproliferation throughout the Clinton administration, said that despite fears about the use of anthrax as a weapon, "the Bush administration has blown up an international meeting aimed at making it more difficult for countries to acquire these biological capabilities." But Larry M. Wortzel, a national security specialist at the conservative Heritage Foundation, said that refusing to be a party to doomed verification efforts is "the sanest thing this administration has done," since the United States has been deceived so often by countries that continued buildups of biological weapons. In July, the United States became the only country to announce its opposition to the proposed enforcement protocol. The White House said it would present other ways to strengthen the treaty and reduce the chance of germ warfare. Last month, as the Geneva conference opened, Bolton presented a U.S. plan that would not make the protocol legally binding under international law, but include it in a politically binding final document. The U.S. package also left out provisions that would have established an international implementing body with the power to investigate suspicious facilities and perform routine visits to declared facilities. However, the U.S. package retained some of the protocol's measures, such as a requirement for any country that signs the treaty to pass laws criminalizing activities prohibited by the treaty. About half of the signatories do not have such laws currently, experts say. The U.S. package would also expand the mandate of the secretary general of the United Nations to investigate suspicious disease outbreaks, clarify vague provisions for resolving compliance concerns and make it easier to extradite criminals who use biological weapons. The State Department official said the administration was "encouraged by the widespread support for U.S. and allied initiatives intended to strengthen the convention through practical national implementation measures." But, he said, "Not everyone welcomed our focus on compliance." "We believe compliance is essential for any arms control regime to be meaningful," he said, and added that the administration was "disappointed" that agreement couldn't be reached. He said that was better than "trying to paper over substantive disagreements with artful drafting." Many arms control advocates said the administration had failed to do all it could to resolve those problems because of its own opposition to a clause that would allow foreign inspections of suspected biological weapons sites on the basis of a challenge by another country. The Bush administration has said that could lead to inspections at private companies and endanger trade secrets. "What John Bolton and the U.S. delegation did was to scuttle realistic practical opportunities to develop an international strategy on germ weapons mainly because the Bush administration fears further negotiations on an international instrument to curb bioweapons that includes possible on-site challenge investigations," said Darryl Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association. The Federation of American Scientists, which promotes disarmament, issued a statement calling the U.S. action "sabotage," and said that European diplomats "privately accused the U.S. of deceiving them." Staff writer Karen DeYoung contributed to this report. © 2001 The Washington Post Company

To: bonnuss_in_austin who wrote (8661)	12/19/2001 5:11:55 PM
From: Mephisto	Respond to of 93284

Cloudy Future for U.S. Women's Agencies The New York Times December 19, 2001 By TAMAR LEWIN The Bush administration is considering shrinking or eliminating some federal offices charged with protecting women's interests and has stalled activity in other offices, say women's advocacy groups and some of the women who work for the offices involved. Those with uncertain futures, these sources say, include the 10 regional offices of the Labor Department's Women's Bureau. The sources also say panels that advise the military and the Department of Veterans Affairs on women's issues have been stalled because the White House has not named new members. There has also been talk of consolidating offices on women's health in agencies like the Food and Drug Administration and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Kathy Rodgers, president of the NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund, called the developments "a broad-based undermining of the structures set up over the years to make sure that American women can participate." Claire Buchan, a White House spokeswoman, said, "The president and this administration have a deep commitment to address issues that are important to American women and women throughout the world." Women's groups were critical of President Bush when he did not continue the White House Office on Women's Initiatives and Outreach, created by Bill Clinton in 1995. One group whose work has been stalled by White House inaction is the Department of Veterans Affairs' Advisory Committee on Women Veterans, which over the years has helped the agency address issues like mammograms and sexual trauma. "We were going along fine at our meeting in March and June," said Lory Manning, a former Navy captain who is on the committee. "But the nominations of new members to replace those whose terms are expiring have been languishing over at the White House since July. The October meeting was canceled, which could just be a question of the war. But then I got a call saying there would be no meeting in January or February, because the committee's charter has not been renewed, the new members have not been named and our funding has not been released." There has been considerable consternation, too, over the Bush administration's not naming new members to a military advisory group, the Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Services. Barbara Brehm, whose term as military director of that committee ended in January, said the failure to continue such advisory groups showed "a significant lack of interest in addressing women's issues." Ms. Buchan said the White House planned to nominate new members to the advisory committees, and a veterans' spokesman said the charter was about to be renewed. As for the Labor Department's Women's Bureau, Ms. Buchan said it was too early in the budget process to discuss possible cuts. On Monday, five advocacy groups wrote to Labor Secretary Elaine L. Chao to protest the possible elimination of the Women's Bureau regional offices - and the elimination of the Labor Department's multimillion- dollar initiative on equal pay. "The elimination of the Women's Bureau regional offices, like the elimination of the department's equal pay initiative, would end programs that are vital and necessary to working women today," they wrote. The bureau was created in the 1920's on the heels of women's suffrage. nytimes.com