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: Alighieri who wrote (153476)	10/16/2002 11:32:39 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1580690

You trivialize a complex question as Bush did today. I was suggesting that Bush possesses none of the qualities you attribute to him. Actually, I think it was YOU who trivilized it. I think it is great you have the freedom to have your own opinion. But I think it is sad you are so mired down in the notion that war is always the worst case scenario that you can't see there often excellent reasons for a war, and that we're facing some of those reasons today. I'm not sure, but I think we are seeing the shaping of a "great" president. Not a "great" communicator as was Reagan, but clearly a president who is strong, fully comprehends the power of the office, is above the political fray, and is immune from the politics of the moment (frankly, I don't think he cares). Pardon me if I think that's a good thing; it is my belief that the lack of these attributes in the previous administration is what made IT such an abject failure.

To: Alighieri who wrote (153476)	10/17/2002 12:14:12 AM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1580690

You aren't actually suggesting that Israel should NOT defend itself if attacked? You trivialize a complex question as Bush did today. I was suggesting that Bush possesses none of the qualities you attribute to him. Al, isn't that the truth. They seem mesmerized by him. ted

To: Alighieri who wrote (153476)	10/17/2002 12:15:09 AM
From: tejek	Respond to of 1580690

Senate approves Defense Bill WASHINGTON (Oct. 16) - The Senate increased defense spending by the largest amount in decades Wednesday, approving $355.4 billion for the fiscal year that began Oct. 1. The vote came as the Republican-controlled House, badly divided with the Democratic Senate over non-defense budgetary issues, decided to go home until after the Nov. 5 election. The defense bill boosts spending by $34.4 billion over last year's level, reflecting the increased needs of the war on terrorism and a possible conflict with Iraq. It was the largest real growth in the defense budget since the Reagan administration. The 93-1 Senate vote sends the bill to President Bush for his signature. The lone dissenting vote in the Senate was cast by Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis. The House approved the measure last week by 409-14. ``This defense budget will provide our troops with the best pay, the best equipment and the best possible training,'' Bush said in a prepared statement. ``It also sends an important signal that we are committed to defending freedom and defeating terror.'' The defense bill is only the second of the 13 annual spending bills that Congress has passed. The other bill was also military-related, providing $10.5 billion for military construction projects. Sen. Daniel Inouye, D-Hawaii, chairman of the Senate Appropriations defense subcommittee, said it was ``imperative we pass this bill before we recess'' to ensure the military the support it needs as it prepares for a possible Iraqi war. With the White House and Senate Democrats unable to agree on spending levels for non-defense federal programs, there was little chance of Congress enacting other appropriations bills before the elections. The House on Wednesday, in a 228-172 vote, approved a fourth temporary spending measure to keep agencies operating at current-year levels until Nov. 22. The Senate approved the measure by voice vote. After the vote, the House recessed until the week after the election. GOP leaders said they were prepared to come back before that if the Senate acted on spending bills or other pending legislation, such as a bill to create a homeland security department. House Republicans have insisted that spending for the 13 appropriations bills be held within the president's goal of $759 billion. Senate Democrats say that is unrealistic because the needs of education, health, environment and other programs, and are demanding at least another $9 billion. While House Republicans blamed the Senate for inaction, Rep. David Obey of Wisconsin, top Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee, said the House was ``walking away from its responsibilities to deal with virtually every domestic problem that we have.'' The Senate on Wednesday did approve a measure to restore a rule requiring a 60-vote majority to overcome an objection to new spending or tax cuts that go beyond established budget levels or that increase the deficit. The current rule expired on Sept. 30, and Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad, D-N.D., said the measure to extend it for six months was ``a major step in preserving fiscal discipline in the U.S. Senate.'' The defense measure increases spending in almost every area, from weapons procurement to payroll. It includes a 4.1 percent pay raise for military personnel and nearly all the $7.4 billion President Bush requested to keep developing a national missile defense system. The bill also provides $3.3 billion for 15 C-17 transport aircraft, $2.3 billion for two Aegis destroyers, $3.2 billion for 46 Navy F/A-18 E/F fighters and $3.5 billion to continue developing the Joint Strike Fighter. Another $249 million is allotted for Navy Tomahawk cruise missiles, a key weapon in the Persian Gulf War. 10/16/02 20:21 EDT Copyright 2002 The Associated Press.