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 (154984)	11/15/2002 12:49:59 PM
From: tejek	Respond to of 1578270

Hmmmmmmmmm.........."spectacular attacks", "mass casualties", and "remains a dangerous threat"......sure doesn't sound like a weakened al Qaeda to me, Al. BTW, I've decided the illegals are at fault for all of it. ted ___________________________________________________________ FBI: Al-Qaeda May Try Major Attack WASHINGTON (Nov. 15) - The FBI is warning that al-Qaida may be planning a ``spectacular'' terrorist attack intended to damage the U.S. economy and inflict large-scale casualties. The White House said Friday it was leaving its alert status at current levels. White House spokesman Scott McClellan cited the lack of any intelligence about specific time, date, location or method of possible attack as the reason for keeping the nation's official terrorist threat level at code yellow, the middle of a five-level scale of risk developed after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. ``We continue to be on high levels of alert, we continue to take additional precautions,'' McClellan said. The FBI warning, which was unusual because of its dire language, simply summarizes the increasing threats that the FBI and the White House have been making public since last month, emphasized Gordon Johndroe, spokesman for the White House's Office of Homeland Security. The warning is not based on new intelligence, ``it is a compilation for law enforcement to understand what the intelligence community believes the threat to be,'' Johndroe said. Still, the White House approved the language in the warning, McClellan said. ``Sources suggest al-Qaida may favor spectacular attacks that meet several criteria: High symbolic value, mass casualties, severe damage to the U.S. economy and maximum psychological trauma,'' says the alert, which was posted on the FBI's Web site early Friday after its existence was reported by The New York Times and The Associated Press. The highest priority targets remain within the aviation, petroleum and nuclear sectors, as well as significant national landmarks, the warning says. ``Target vulnerability and likelihood of success may be as important to a weakened al-Qaida as the target's prominence,'' according to the warning. ``Thus, al-Qaida's next attack may rely on conventional explosives and low-technology platforms such as truck bombs, commercial or private aircraft, small watercraft, or explosives easily concealed and planted by terrorist operatives,'' it said. Federal authorities previously have issued warnings for specific industries and national landmarks in general. But there is clearly worry that the danger of an attack is growing because of increased ``chatter'' picked up through intelligence channels, the continuing U.S. showdown with Iraq and the recently revealed audiotaped warnings believed to be from al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden. The government's additional precautions include unspecified ``additional steps to ramp up our protection and prevention measures'' within federal agencies, he said. The FBI and other agencies also are communicating possible threats and assessments of risk to state and local law enforcement agencies and specific industries that could be targeted. In recent weeks, the FBI has issued warnings about possible attacks on U.S. railroads and on the energy industry, as well as a more general warning about heightened risk during the Muslim holy month of Ramadan, which started Wednesday and ends Dec. 5. ``We're especially sensitive to timeframes which might be thought by the enemy to be a time when they might want to make a statement,'' Attorney General John Ashcroft said. On Wednesday, the FBI told authorities in Houston, Chicago, San Francisco and Washington to be aware of threats against hospitals. Even though that threat was assigned low credibility by senior law enforcement officials, the FBI is preferring to err on the side of caution in terms of giving out information, officials said. The idea is to increase vigilance among local police and people working in industries that are potential targets. Last week, the State Department warned that Thursday's execution of Pakistani Aimal Khan Kasi in Virginia could lead to reprisals against Americans. Two days after his November 1997 conviction, assailants shot and killed four American oil company workers in Karachi, Pakistan. Kasi was executed for killing two CIA employees in a 1993 shooting outside the agency's headquarters. The recent nightclub bombing in Bali, Indonesia, the assault on Marines in Kuwait and the attack on a French oil tanker near Yemen - as well as the U.S. strike on a car carrying suspected terrorists, also in Yemen - are described by several law enforcement officials as actions that point to an increased threat. ``If there was any doubt in anybody's mind that al-Qaida remains a dangerous threat to America or the world, I suspect it was dispelled with the string of attacks,'' Tom Ridge, director of the White House homeland security office, said Thursday. It is up to Ridge and Ashcroft to decide whether a change in threat level is warranted. Ashcroft and Deputy Attorney General Larry Thompson are among a few Justice Department officials who see the daily raw intelligence on terrorism gathered by the FBI, CIA and other intelligence agencies. The threat level was elevated from yellow to orange for two weeks in September to coincide with the first anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks. It has remained at yellow since then, but the possibility of U.S. military action against Iraq has lawmakers and the Bush administration on guard. ``I think that as we ratchet up toward Iraq, we have to believe that there will be attempts in this country anywhere, perhaps everywhere, to do us harm,'' Sen. Richard Shelby of Alabama, senior Republican on the Senate Intelligence Committee, said on CNN. Ridge and FBI Director Robert Mueller say the nation is far better prepared to detect and stop a terrorist attack than it was prior to Sept. 11, 2001. They say the intelligence sharing among agencies is vastly improved, as well as information about airplane passengers, people who enter through U.S. border crossings and students who lose their status and remain in this country. 11/15/02 10:45 EST Copyright 2002 The Associated Press. The information contained in the AP news report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or otherwise distribu

To: Alighieri who wrote (154984)	11/15/2002 12:54:41 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1578270

Al, damn Dems. Don't they know its haaaaaaarrrrrrrrdddddd catching bin Laden. That's why we're going after Saddam. Damn Dems., they ruin everything. ted _________________________________________________________ Daschle Rips Bush on Terror War WASHINGTON (Nov. 14) - Now that Osama bin Laden is thought to be alive and threatening more attacks, the Senate's top Democrat said Thursday the administration's inability to catch the al-Qaida leader raises questions about ''whether or not we are winning the war on terror.'' ''We can't find bin Laden. We haven't made real progress'' in finding key elements of al-Qaida, said Majority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D. ''They continue to be as great a threat today as they were one and a half years ago. So by what measure can we claim to be successful so far?'' Asked about it at the Pentagon, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld ducked the question of whether the United States was winning the war. He also refused to speculate on whether bin Laden was dead or alive in light of the release this week of a threatening audiotape thought to have come from the al-Qaida leader. ''The answer is yes, he is alive or dead,'' Rumsfeld said. The questions irked White House aides, too, as spokesman Scott McClellan refused to say whether President Bush and his team were frustrated by the failure to find bin Laden. ''Let me put it this way: If Osama bin Laden is alive, we know he's on the run,'' the spokesman said. ''We have dismantled his terrorist network. And we are going to continue tracking down these trained killers and their leaders and their networks wherever they are and bringing these people to justice.'' Senate Republican Leader Trent Lott, R-Miss., said, ''It seems to me like Senator Daschle's comments are inappropriate and out of order.'' Still, the failure to catch the world's No. 1 terror suspect and other key figures has dogged the Bush administration, other arrests and successes around the world notwithstanding. Is the United States winning the war against terrorism? ''No, I don't think so,'' said foreign policy analyst Ivan Eland of the Cato Institute. But, like the administration, Loren Thompson of the Lexington Institute, another think tank, said, ''We are definitely making progress.'' Not in catching up to bin Laden. Over the past 14 months, U.S.-led forces have been unable to find him despite their billion-dollar high-tech spy equipment, a multimillion-dollar reward, search operations by thousands of troops and hours of questioning prisoners. The Pentagon is hoping to get new hints following the airing of the audiotape that threatens America and its allies. Though bin Laden tops the Pentagon's wanted list, defense officials said the war has never been about one person. Tens of thousands of U.S., British, Canadian, Australian, Danish and other forces have worked in the region around Afghanistan over the past year - searching by land, air and sea for al-Qaida and former Taliban rulers who scattered in the first few months after the Afghan bombing campaign began in the fall of 2001. Across patches of Afghanistan, special operations forces from several nations have secretly spied in villages and mountain passes that could be possible hideouts. Troops have collected and analyzed heaps of documents, computer disks and other evidence left by enemy fighters in caves and underground bunkers. They have monitored satellite images and intercepted radio, telephone and e-mail communications. Unmanned spy planes equipped with cameras and Predator drones fitted with Hellfire missiles have been used by CIA operatives. In one instance, they killed a tall man gathered with others under a tree. DNA analysis of his remains later showed that it was not the 6-foot-4 bin Laden. And an international naval task force has monitored thousands of seafaring vessels in hopes of catching al-Qaida fleeing by water. In Afghanistan, officials have been saying for months that bin Laden is hiding in neighboring Pakistan's tribal border region, accessible by hundreds of foot paths that wind through the area's rugged peaks. U.S. Special Forces joined Pakistani troops more than six months ago in an attempt to flush out al-Qaida and Taliban fugitives, angering the tribesmen who continue to back the Taliban and bin Laden's organization despite the Pakistani government's joining Washington's side in the war. Anyone who might know where bin Laden is apparently isn't saying, despite promises of big money. The United States has offered a $25 million reward for information to help capture him. Less than half of some 30 al-Qaida leaders have been captured or killed during the war, though the routing of the network from Afghanistan has put the terrorists on the run and made it harder to operate, officials say. Arrests, the clamping down on terrorist finances and other efforts have foiled some planned attacks, officials said, though there was a resurgence of attacks around the world last month. As for bin Laden, some intelligence officials say the best chance to catch him was lost last December, when he was believed hiding at his Tora Bora stronghold during U.S.-led airstrikes but escaped because too few American troops were committed to the hunt Rumsfeld has denied such an error was made and said in April that despite numerous tips, rumors and other intelligence, the U.S. military simply had never had the ''actionable intelligence'' - enough good and timely information on bin Laden's whereabouts - to mount a mission to go after him. Officials said that remains true. AP-NY-11-14-02 2035EST Copyright 2002 The Associated Press.

To: Alighieri who wrote (154984)	11/15/2002 12:56:36 PM
From: Tenchusatsu	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1578270

Al, from the editorial that you posted: At the top of that list for Democrats is the need for an alternative foreign policy. It would insist on the need to cultivate alliances and to avoid turning our friends into gratuitous critics. What have I been saying all along? Lots of criticism for the current foreign policy without an alternative to suggest? But that would be too "complicated" a message to convey, I guess. No wonder they stuck to tired slogans like "It's the economy, stupid," which itself is an insult to intelligence. Tenchusatsu

To: Alighieri who wrote (154984)	11/15/2002 5:58:08 PM
From: steve harris	Respond to of 1578270

Al, re:E. J. Dionne Jr. Is this another washingtonpost liberal rag post? I'd read it but they want me to tell them who I am first. A liberal mind is a terrible thing.......... Steve

To: Alighieri who wrote (154984)	11/17/2002 3:50:06 PM
From: hmaly	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1578270

Alighieri Re... The obvious explanation for this is that the policy has been set one week by the go-it-alone regime-changers, Vice President Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, and the next by Secretary of State Colin Powell, a multilateral disarmer. This is a Powell moment, and even administration critics are lauding him for brokering a unanimous U.N. Security Council vote for tough inspections.> Before I answer this let me make a observation. I have been at work all summer and didn't have time to keep up with the postings on two boards, so I concentrated on the mod side. However, coming back, and reading the last hundred posts, one can make several observations. While David still seems to be the board conservative, Ted seems to have imploded before the elections, and you seem to be the new resident liberal. GW sure has gained strength on this board. Even Ted admits freely that he has under estimated GW. No one has ever accused GW of being a deep thinker; I have defended GW on the basis of GW being a republican, not because I believed he was an astute thinker. How times have changed. GW either seems to be the saviest politician around, or luckier than even Bill, as current events have been a godsend for GW. Who would have thought a sniper in our midst could help GW's cause so much,but it has. The recent Osama messages have re-enforced GW's war on terror. "its the economy stupid" has taken a back seat to terrorism. Current events have shown the Dems need to change their message. That said, here again is the quote I would like to address. <<<The obvious explanation for this is that the policy has been set one week by the go-it-alone regime-changers, Vice President Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, and the next by Secretary of State Colin Powell, a multilateral disarmer. This is a Powell moment, and even administration critics are lauding him for brokering a unanimous U.N. Security Council vote for tough inspections. While that seems like a change in policy, or an ascendency in Powell's side of the argument, the change in tactics probably just reflects changing circumstances. It is unlikely the US could have won a tough resolution in the UN before Bali, the French oil tanker, and the Moscow theater incidents. All of these have bought home to the world the scope of the threat of terrorism. "[The] weeks of negotiations carried out by the State Department have eroded the president's position, not terminally, but worryingly," they have written. "The inspections process on which we are to embark is a trap. . . . Will the clarity of the case for war have been compromised, perhaps fatally, by the latest round of diplomacy?" This is a needless worry. Saddam has already sealed his own fate. Let me also say, that I agree with you and Ted, in that Saddam isn't the threat he is made out to be. However, terrorism is, and Saddam is a pawn. Saddam actually is our friend, much as us AMD droids say Otellini is our friend at Intel, when he makes a silly decision. Conquering terrorism is the goal, and Iraq is the prime starting point. While the US had to start with Afghanistan, because of Taliban and Al Quada, Iraq is a much better place to start the war on terror. Why? Power and money primarily, but the addition of Saddam to the equation makes it a no lose situation. Power in that Iraq supposedly through Saddam's army and boasting is considered the Arab power in the middle east. If the US defeats the power in the area, the US, and its poxy gov. will become the power; and we won't need to kiss the Saudi's a## to use their bases. Money, because with lots of it, the US will be able to do in Iraq, what the US couldn't do in Afghanistan; create a showcase for the Moslim world, a democracy (My guess is that the US will primarily use US instead of local troops, such as those used in Afghanistan, for this reason); such as the one created in Japan after WWII, which will take lots of money, money supplied by oil. Saddam because how could the CIA have come up with a better person to compare to the despots of history, such as Hitler, or Stalin, or Pol Pot, to justify such a undertaking. A great undertaking, such as getting rid of the dictatorships common to the Arabic world, needs a truly despicable person to justify the effort. Saddam nicely fulfills that need. And once a benevelant democracy is set up in Iraq, (How could the US do any worse than what Saddam is doing there now?), the rest of the dictators of the Arab world could succomb. That is how GW and the hawks envision winning the war on terrorism, financed by oil. Certainly they won't let a few inspections alter destiny. Democrats are in this position," she wrote before the election, "precisely because we respond to matters of war politically, tactically. We worry about how to position ourselves so as not to look weak, rather than thinking through realistic, sensible Democratic principles on how and when to apply military force, and arguing particular cases, such as Iraq, from those principles." Bingo. GW has his finger upon the bigger picture, the dems don't have an alternative,on how to win the war. Had the Democrats made a concerted push much earlier for a tough multilateral approach to Iraq -- as former U.N. ambassador Richard Holbrooke was urging them to do -- the party could have claimed victory when Bush turned toward the United Nations. Instead, as Hurlburt wrote, "most hid behind 'tough questions' without offering a credible alternative." << That is hardy the big picture I was talking about. The question is, how do we win the war on terrorism. Capturing OBL or finding Saddams's weapons of mass destruction are a means to an end, not the end in itself. To win the war, the US must reshape the middle east, in the same way the US has reshaped Japan, or Germany, from militaristic dictarships/ monarchies, holding power by force, into democratic societies, holding power through the will of the people. Don't laugh, it has worked before. Saddam's rule has made the people of Iraq and the area amendable to a more beneficial ruler, Iraq's money will be the fuel to carry it out. The Dems inability to see how Iraq relates to the war on terror, and the possibilities of a successful war is the problem.