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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: SirRealist who wrote (19540)	2/21/2002 10:34:38 AM
From: tekboy	Respond to of 281500

well, since either he'll be right or I'll be right, I win either way, no? tb@bethedger.com

To: SirRealist who wrote (19540)	2/21/2002 5:10:28 PM
From: Raymond Duray	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

SirRealist, Hey, do you think we need to get to the back of the bus? sf.indymedia.org Ann Coulter wants to execute you, and Condy Rice spoke later in the day "We need to execute people like John Walker in order to physically intimidate liberals", says Ann Coulter, vicious spokesperson for some real big-brains. Subject:Liberals, report to re-education The Atlanta Journal-Constitution 02.14.2002 By JAY BOOKMAN Atlanta Journal-Constitution Columnist "We need to execute people like John Walker in order to physically intimidate liberals, by making them realize that they can be killed too," pundit Ann Coulter told this month's meeting of the Conservative Political Action Conference. "Otherwise they will turn out to be outright traitors." Appearing on Fox News a few days later, Coulter acknowledged the statement and bragged that it had been a "huge hit with the audience," an estimated 3,500 who turned out for the three-day conference in Arlington, Va., that bills itself as the nation's "premier annual gathering of conservatives." In addition to Coulter, attendees also heard luminaries such as Lynne Cheney, William Bennett and Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson. Now, I have to admit that the Coulter statements -- and the reception they apparently received from a mainstream conservative audience -- really shocked me. Until now, I had operated under the delusion that we liberals had something to add to the great debate that helps guide this country. I had no idea that only the fear of execution was keeping me in line. I'll even admit that at first, I thought Coulter must be wrong. I couldn't see how there were still enough liberals around to threaten national security. Then I remembered that more than half the voters in the 2000 election had voted for Al Gore, so I guess we do have a major problem. So, being a good liberal, I propose a new government program to address the problem. We could call it Liberal Intimidation And Re-education. All those Americans who voted for Gore, and yet still think of themselves as patriotic, would be asked to report immediately to LIAR camps. Of course -- and give me credit here, you can see I'm really trying to reform -- the camps would be privately run "charter camps." Some would also be faith-based programs, designed specifically to re-educate liberal Christians who have deluded themselves into believing that Jesus meant what he said about turning the other cheek, about not judging lest you be judged, about loving your neighbor and the dangers of hoarding wealth. In the camps we would be forced to read nothing but the Wall Street Journal editorial page and watch Fox News 24 hours a day. Every time an image of Bill Clinton showed up on our TV screens, we would get a jolt of electricity, so that in time we too would cringe whenever we saw the man, just as real Americans do. (An image of Hillary would of course draw double the voltage.) I'm actually looking forward to the experience, because I might get insight into some of the inner mysteries of conservative thought: Why is John Walker Lindh the embodiment of all America-hating liberalism, while Timothy McVeigh, the Oklahoma City bomber, was merely a deluded individual with no deeper meaning about conservatism? Why must welfare mothers be forced out of the home and into the work force, while middle-class mothers have to be forced out of the work force and back to the kitchen? How do gay Americans pose a threat to heterosexual families, and where is the secure, undisclosed location where they're keeping Tom DeLay's brain? I even have the perfect man to serve as camp commandant: John Ashcroft. It was Ashcroft, you'll remember, who told Congress that anyone who criticized his decisions was aiding terrorists. Clearly this is a man who already recognizes the danger; he deserves first crack at fixing it. And of course, just before graduation, as a test of our newfound loyalty, we former liberals would be required to volunteer to get lobotomies. That way, we would all emerge from the LIAR program exactly as smart as Ann Coulter. If not quite as vicious. ......................................................... [[A note to unclewest: Be sure to send me one of your backyard fallout shelter plans when available. Looks like I'll have more use for it than you. <g> ]] All the Best, Ray

To: SirRealist who wrote (19540)	2/22/2002 1:40:48 AM
From: tekboy	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 281500

I've bookmarked that TB, to see how prescient your contact's words prove to be. ok, now I'll complicate things a bit. I was talking to another buddy today, also a former official who is just as smart, knowledgeable, and well-plugged-in as the first (in fact, they're friends). I told him what the first guy had said, and he pooh-poohed it entirely. Cheney will indeed be going to the Middle East to consult, he said, not to present any ultimatum or definitive plans regarding Iraq. In fact, the reason it's Cheney is because he has a unique mixture of authority in the administration and respect in the region. He can speak absolutely frankly one-on-one to, say, Crown Prince Abdullah and coordinate policy directly. The administration has not decided on anything vis-a-vis Iraq, this guy believes, and when they do decide will probably try to revivify the sanctions regime rather than go to war. His sources tell him that most people in the administration other than the hardcore neocons realize the "axis of evil" line was a big mistake. It was stuck in by the speechwriters, hardliners, and the President, who didn't realize it would be seen as such a big deal. Since there was, in fact, no policy change in the offing, the initial reaction to the ensuing brouhaha was to walk things back--but this was stopped in its tracks by Karen Hughes, who insisted that nobody make the President look bad by tacitly conceding he had made a giant blooper. So everybody has been forced to toe the rhetorical line, even though they don't have anything substantive to offer in support of it. so--which story you choose to believe is up to you. Both of these guys know much more about the region and about policymaking than I do, by the way, so I'm hardly in a position to dismiss either case. That said, if I had to choose I'd side with the latter guy. tb@causehe'smyage.com