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: calgal who wrote (309774)	10/18/2002 10:53:15 PM
From: Dr. Doktor	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

Why the Left Hates America By Dan Flynn FrontPageMagazine.com \| October 18, 2002 The Left hates America. This obvious fact has been affirmed to me through attending scores of left-wing demonstrations, visiting the most virulently left-wing campuses, and reading the Left’s journals and web sites. This was not an exercise in masochism, but research conducted for my new book, Why the Left Hates America: Exposing the Lies That Have Obscured Our Nation’s Greatness. To venture inside the Left, particularly for a conservative, is to enter a more turbulent zone for research than, say, a library or in front of a Lexis-Nexis database. In the course of gathering information for Why the Left Hates America, I was assaulted, shouted-down, ejected from a conference, intentionally sent computer viruses, and mooned, among other things. In the course of interviewing attendees of a leftist rally in front of the U.S. Supreme Court in early 2000, I was physically attacked—twice. After covering the first two days of the Black Panthers’ 35th anniversary reunion this April, I was ejected from the conference on the third day and informed that I was henceforth banned for life from Panther gatherings. While speaking at Swarthmore, a radical activist shook her rain-soaked umbrella over my head as I spoke, while another disturbed young woman held up her middle-finger through the entirety of the lecture. Radical activists shouted down my lecture on the Mumia Abu-Jamal case at Berkeley in an orchestrated campaign of screaming. As I tried to speak, one activist attempted to rip the microphone’s plug out of its socket. I was “mooned.” The Left concluded the event by holding a public book-burning using my writings as the kindling. As reprehensible as the domestic Left’s actions are, their words are perhaps even more disturbing. I attended a variety of events dubbed “anti-war” or “anti-globalization” protests by the media. This is a wild mischaracterization. These supposedly “anti-war” and “anti-globalization” protests are really anti-American protests. Anyone taking the time to talk to any of the protestors—as I did in putting together Why the Left Hates America—would very quickly discover this to be true. “The country is dominated by capitalism and imperialism,” a protestor outside the World Economic Forum meeting in New York last winter told me, adding, “in fact, our policies make the United States the greatest terrorist power on the globe these days.” Attendees of an anti-war protest on the Mall in Washington, DC this April echoed these sentiments. “We are a terrorist nation,” one middle-aged demonstrator remarked. “I think the United States is a culturally and emotionally diseased country,” a student from North Carolina explained to me. “Who’s the real Axis of Evil?” asked another student. “If any country’s really an Axis of Evil, it’s us.” Such sentiments are virtually ubiquitous among those attending leftist rallies. Clearly, the Left’s reflexive anti-Americanism doesn’t withstand even mild scrutiny. This is why, perhaps, so many on the anti-American Left are quick to resort to violence, censorship, and other tactics to stifle debate. The Left, a group that has excused totalitarianism abroad and resorted to fascistic tactics in the institutions they control at home, hates America. Americans should be glad to be despised by such people.

To: calgal who wrote (309774)	10/18/2002 10:55:36 PM
From: calgal	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

U.S. softens on resolution By Bill Sammon and David R. Sands THE WASHINGTON TIMES URL: washingtontimes.com The Bush administration yesterday backed down on some of its conditions for a U.N. Security Council resolution on Iraq, but insisted it had neither caved in to French demands for two resolutions nor limited U.S. ability to use force. Top Stories • North Korea's nuclear program 'troubling' • U.S. saw North Korea's work to enrich fuel for nukes • Bombs kill 6 in Philippines • Ex-Enron trader admits to manipulating prices • Police discredit sniper witness • Pope expected to tell bishops to ease sex-abuse policy The United States has sought a single resolution that explicitly authorizes military force if Iraq fails to cooperate with U.N. weapons inspectors. Other Security Council members want two resolutions, one on toughening the weapons inspections rules on Iraq, with a second one to come later describing the consequences should Baghdad block the inspectors. Diplomats, who spoke to reporters at the United Nations on the condition of anonymity, said that the United States was pushing a reworded resolution that waters down some of the threats against Iraq. The reworded resolution would not explicitly threaten force, instead mentioning less-explicit "consequences," and would also require the United States to consult with the Security Council again before taking any military action. A U.S. official last night told The Washington Times on the condition of anonymity that while no agreement had been reached with the French, who can veto any U.N. Security Council resolution, Americans are "holding firm to one resolution, with a reference to consequences." The official acknowledged that the U.S. was circulating a reworded draft, but declined to discuss the changes. "We are exchanging language with the French," the official said last night. "We are trying to work out an agreement." Late last night, a diplomat at the United Nations told Reuters news agency that France appeared favorably disposed to the new U.S. proposal. "So far the U.S. changes are acceptable to France," the diplomat said, adding that negotiations between Paris and Washington were continuing. A senior White House official told reporters on the condition of anonymity that the new U.S. wording says the government of Saddam Hussein would be in "material breach" if it violates any U.N. resolution. The term "material breach" allowed for military action to be taken in Kosovo in 1999. The official said that therefore Mr. Bush would have "maximum flexibility" to use force without a second resolution, should Saddam fail to comply. U.S. Ambassador John Negroponte told a Security Council hearing last night that the United States would introduce a new U.N. resolution shortly. "We are considering the reactions we have received and will be placing before the council, in the near future, a resolution with clear and immediate requirements — requirements that Iraq would voluntarily meet if it chooses to cooperate," he said. In Washington, the Bush administration seemed willing to consider jettisoning its insistence on language that explicitly calls for war against Iraq and substituting a call for serious "consequences." "I've always said that the wording about consequences was what we are working on to find an agreement," White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer told The Times. "And so that is happening." State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said the aim was still for "a strong resolution that makes clear there must be consequences." "Those consequences would come in the form of action if Iraq does not comply," said Mr. Boucher. The administration yesterday said that while negotiations over details would continue, the United States would not give in on the issue of two resolutions. "We are pushing for one resolution," Mr. Fleischer said. "Conversations are continuing and they're getting hotter. We'll see if we're able to get an agreement or if it falls apart." Mr. Negroponte said last night that "the United States believes that the best way to ensure Iraqi compliance is through one resolution that is firm and unambiguous in its message." The United States objects to the two-resolution proposal because it would require two votes and offer more opportunities for delays. In a sign of the quickening tempo of the closed-door talks, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell spoke by phone with both French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin and British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw Wednesday and yesterday, and with Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov Wednesday. Mr. Powell also met yesterday with chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix, a conversation Washington requested two days ago, according to U.N. sources. U.N. delegations of the five veto-wielding permanent members of the Security Council have also been meeting in New York on a regular basis. Mr. Ivanov told reporters in Moscow that the British and Americans have prepared a new draft resolution that "will take into account the Russian viewpoint." "The Russian side is waiting for this draft in order to familiarize itself with it," he added, saying he expected the new text by the weekend. Moscow has shared French concerns against the U.S. insistence on a single resolution authorizing force should Iraq fail to meet U.N. disarmament demands. The Bush administration refused to comment on Mr. Ivanov's remarks, but a senior State Department official, speaking on background, said the U.N. powers are "talking on the basis of the [single] U.S. draft." "They always have been; they still are," the official said. The U.S. demand for an explicit threat of force against Baghdad was denounced at the United Nations yesterday, with speech after speech from Third World ambassadors calling Iraq's decision last month to allow U.N. inspectors to return an important first step that should be cultivated. "Every possible effort should be made to avert war," Bangladeshi U.N. Ambassador Iftekhar Ahmed Chowdhury told the council yesterday. Even Kuwait, which was invaded by Saddam Hussein's forces in 1990 and was liberated by U.S. troops, failed to endorse basic American demands. "Any use of force must be a last resort and within the United Nations framework and only after all other available means have been exhausted," Kuwaiti Ambassador Mohammad Abulhasan said at yesterday's Security Council meeting. •Betsy Pisik contributed to this report