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: tejek who wrote (156781)	12/26/2002 9:20:32 PM
From: hmaly	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1580039

Ted Re..She may get paid by GAO but its the people of WA state that can fire and hire her. I believe both can fire her. The rest of her colleagues can vote for a censure. A reasonably intelligent person would understand that she was talking about the concept implemented by OBL and not praising the man or his organization. Therefore, many of her constituents understood and agreed with the point of her commentary. While some of the bruhaha is over her praise of OBL, my main point of why she was wrong was because of her not acknowledgeing the US aid we give to the poor. Because US and British intelligence operatives say so. And while the Bush administration intimates that Saddam has connections with al Qaeda, the best they have been able to do is simply intimate; real proof is never forthcoming. Intimating, prejudging, hinting etc seem to be the favorite tactics of the GOP to sway public opinion. I wouldn't be too sure if I were you. In fact Lieberman was on Good Morning America this morning from a army base (in Afghanistan I believe). He was asked about Iraq, and he said that he personally was in confidential meetings and saw confidential information concerning Saddams WMD; and that he agrees with GW that Saddam has them. Even Murray (she is on the foreign affairs committee) agrees that Saddam has WMD. The dispute is over how dangerous is he and how to deal with him. However, she did not think military action was necessary at this time and voted against the Iraq resolution. Once again, like many of her constituents, she believes we should be putting our efforts into capturing al Qaeda. Perhaps she is saying two different things. However her Iraq res. vote is only 2 months old. The way I read it from that paragraph I posted,( Murray acknowledged that Saddam Hussein is an evil menace and agreed that disarming Iraq’s weapons capability is America’s most important objective – and one that could require military action to achieve ) she claims that dismanteling Saddams WMD is the most important obective; not capturing OBL. Read it again if you disagree. Now, you're suggesting she "yelled fire in a theater"; I think you've had a little to much eggnog this Xmas. And good eggnog it was. However that "fire in the theater" remark simply means that the right to free speech doesn't give you the right to say anything anytime, anywhere,without facing the consequences. And criticising people for what they say doesn't necessarily mean you are against speech, just some of the ideas being conveyed. There are always people in this country all too ready to call others unAmerican because those people do not agree with the prevailing view.......and much too often the prevailing view turns out to be a bad one. I think she twisted the facts to suit her purposes. I didn't say she was unpatriotic. That said, just how patriotic is someone who twists the facts so she can be re-elected or further her agenda. To go to war or not to war should be decided on facts, not a bunch of lies.