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 : Stockman Scott's Political Debate Porch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Mannie who wrote (10116)	12/7/2002 8:17:09 PM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 89467

Scott: Enjoy the local music... Soon I'm headed out to a holiday party....hope to catch Norah Jones on Saturday Night Live later tonight...;-) -s2

To: Mannie who wrote (10116)	12/7/2002 8:27:26 PM
From: stockman_scott	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 89467

Washington won't release evidence of Iraqi weapons cbc.ca

To: Mannie who wrote (10116)	12/8/2002 4:29:28 PM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 89467

Analysis: Did Bush miss his exit on Iraq? By Patrick E. Tyler The New York Times WASHINGTON — The arrival of Iraq's encyclopedic declaration of weapons data this weekend impels the Bush administration toward the last offramp along the road to war. Even as the United States mobilizes for a campaign to disarm and decapitate Iraq's government, President Bush is facing final determination of whether the Iraqi arms declaration is an honest rendering — a step toward disarmament — or a capricious lie that establishes the basis for disarmament by force, a step Bush says he will take as a last resort. Therefore the last offramp — the expression is a favorite of Secretary of State Colin Powell — is the one that leads to a relentless U.N. inspection program, backed by a credible threat of force, that persuades Saddam Hussein to surrender everything that could be construed as illicit weapons or the banned tools for making them. It may be wishful thinking that Saddam can ever change or abandon his ambition to lead the Arab world. But the question that clings to the capital is whether anything will be enough for Bush. "Everyone in this town who claims to know the president's mind says he is determined to finish off the Saddam weapons-of-mass-destruction problem and the regime," said Fritz Ermarth, who was chairman of the National Intelligence Council under the first President Bush and is now a resident at the Nixon Center. Still, he added: "We are at a colossally important milestone. How this plays out is extremely important for the international order, for the credibility of the United States as a power and as a consensus-leading power, or not." Diplomats and statesmen were seized by the momentousness of the deliberations over Iraq. Many echoed Ermarth, saying decisions made in coming weeks will heavily influence the rules for security, war and intervention at a time of unrivaled U.S. power. Yet most Americans seem to focus more on whether there will be another military dash across the desert like the one the president's father ordered in the Persian Gulf War in 1991. Polling data show an impressive majority of Americans are game. They would like Bush to work within the U.N. system in confronting Iraq but also realize he may not be able to abide constraints on the goals he has set for changing the Iraqi government. Ermarth sees the possibility of delay and obfuscation by Saddam. "Saddam is playing for delay, and a lot of other international actors are playing for that, too," he said. Other nations, some close allies, want time to see what the inspections yield. Still others want to see more intelligence on whether Iraq has the capacity to develop a nuclear weapon over the next five years. At the United Nations, there was a substantial measure of skepticism that Bush was looking for an offramp at all. Some officials questioned whether the administration, with its bellicose statements on regime change, was trying to undermine the diplomatic and inspection track. "There is a very fine line between showing a seriousness of intent and conveying the impression that you are going to war no matter what happens, and that fine line should not be crossed," said a U.N. official who spent the week trying to evaluate the statements emanating from Washington. What seemed new this season was that Bush, in an interview with the Washington Post's Bob Woodward, extended earlier public remarks on how fighting terrorism would be the focus of his presidency into a broader vision that seems almost quixotic. Bush described his presidency as one devoted to confronting the remaining despotic regimes in the world. He said he loathed Kim Jong Il, the North Korean leader, for "starving his people." Bush told Woodward, "They tell me we don't need to move too fast" to take action to free oppressed peoples. "I just don't buy that," he said. "Either you believe in freedom, and want to — and worry about the human condition, or you don't." These comments suggest Bush is not engaged in an opportunistic whipping up of an Iraq crisis, as some of his critics allege, as a way to divert the country from a troubled economy during the election campaign. They also suggest Bush might not be willing to take the last offramp, even though a timely exit would allow him to pocket the credit for bringing Iraq back under U.N. supervision. The hawks in the administration are nervous, some observers say. "They are nervous that he will not pull the trigger," said Michael McFaul, a professor of political science at Stanford University who has advised the Bush and Clinton administrations on Russian policy. "They thought they were in the driver's seat," he said, "and now they are panicked" because they agreed to drive Bush to the United Nations, which is now in charge on the ground in Iraq. War could still break out, but Ermarth, asked to assess the odds, said, "By a hair, I would bet that things get dragged out." But there is always the winter after next. Copyright © 2002 The Seattle Times Company seattletimes.nwsource.com

To: Mannie who wrote (10116)	12/9/2002 12:46:39 PM
From: Thomas M.	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 89467

For months now, an ever dwindling number of people have been asking The W Administration for some evidence on Iraq, and their WMD Meanwhile, no one is asking the W Admin about its own offensive biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons programs. sunshine-project.org Some declassified documents that the government refuses to make public: - Portable Vehicle Arresting Barrier (PVAB) - Preliminary Legal Review of Proposed Acoustic Energy Non-Lethal Weapon Systems - Establishment of Odor Response Profiles: Ethnic, Racial and Cultural Influences - Spider Fiber Technology Assessment and Concept Analysis - Antipersonnel Chemical Immobilizers: Sedatives; Antipersonnel Calmative Agents - Sticky Slicky Weapons; Harassing, Annoying, and "Bad Guy" - Identifying Chemicals; Enhanced Lethality KE [Kinetic Energy] Warhead - Fishing for Trucks - Spider Fiber Entangler - Loaded Speed Bump Imagine what is classified! thememoryhole.org Tom