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: TigerPaw who wrote (362099)	2/21/2003 2:36:01 PM
From: jlallen	Respond to of 769670

You wouldn't know the truth if it bit you on the #ss.

To: TigerPaw who wrote (362099)	2/21/2003 2:37:38 PM
From: JakeStraw	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769670

TP, Glad to see you know that all you post is "rumors and innuendo".

To: TigerPaw who wrote (362099)	2/21/2003 2:41:08 PM
From: JakeStraw	Respond to of 769670

Clinton Has Diners Evicted Ex-president, now man-of-the-people Bill Clinton had a table full of diners at a local Little Rock eatery evicted in mid-meal last weekend because he wanted their seats for himself and his entourage. Checking into the town's trendy new restaurant "The Living Room" for Sunday brunch, he of the humble roots asked for a table near the window. But, according to U.S. News & World Report's "Washington Whispers," the only window table that could accommodate Clinton's party of 12 was full. No problem. "The Living Room's" hostess gladly obliged his highness by simply "asking" the more plebeian customers to move to a less desirable table. Once seated, reports "Whispers," "Clinton had to step away to use his cellular phone, and customers report that he waved at passing cars while talking." Little Rock locals best be prepared to make more such sacrifices for their home-state royal. "Friends say the visit proves to Arkansas skeptics that Clinton plans to spend lots of time in Little Rock as he works to build his presidential library and museum," the magazine noted.

To: TigerPaw who wrote (362099)	2/21/2003 2:48:16 PM
From: JakeStraw	Respond to of 769670

Daschle Stung by Truth: Dems Don't Care About National Security Squealing like a stuck pig suffering a nervous breakdown, Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle took to the Senate floor Wednesday and began shrieking that President Bush should apologize for claiming Democrats don't care about national security. In fact, Bush had made no such charge. But it's too bad he didn't. Because the truth is, the Democratic Party in its current configuration couldn't care less about national security - and the proof is their silence through eight years of the national security wrecking crew that was the Clinton administration. Sen. Daschle, Rep. Dick Gephardt and a whole host of fellow Dems sat idly by as Bill Clinton single-handedly dismantled America's most carefully crafted defenses - eviscerating the CIA, politicizing the FBI and trading nuclear ballistic missile secrets to Beijing in exchange for campaign cash. When Clinton-donor Johnny Chung came forward with a hair-raising story about China's deputy military intelligence chief, who Chung said handed him $300,000 after observing, "We like your president. We want to see him reelected" - the GOP was outraged. But the Daschle Democrats and their media cohorts greeted Chung's account with a great big yawn. The meeting had been arranged by the head of China's state-run aerospace company, who hoped the campaign cash would purchase the Clinton administration's continued indulgence as U.S. satellite companies funneled yet more ballistic missile guidance technology their way. Today, thanks to Daschle's brand of national security vigilance, every major U.S. city is within striking distance of the People's Liberation Army's nuclear arsenal. And that's just the tip of the iceberg. National security? How about a White House where 1,100 confidential FBI files on political enemies were illegally turned over to political operatives at the snap of a Clinton lawyer's fingers? Or where presidential aides refused to submit to background checks that might reveal their history of drug abuse? How about the top White House personnel officer, who was hired because she used to run an investment company owned by a convicted cocaine distributor who in turn used to donate heavily to the President? National security? What about a president who telephoned congressmen to lobby for support of his plan to send U.S. troops into harm's way in the Balkans - while Monica Lewisnky simultaneously performed oral sex? National security? As if the oral sex troop deployments weren't enough, Mr. Daschle's fearless leader decided to have phone sex with Lewinsky in numerous calls conducted over unsecured lines - a development that still has many wondering whether foreign intelligence services were able to intercept the calls and use them to blackmail America. When the GOP said they wanted to investigate the Clinton-Lewinsky calls as part of the Clinton impeachment probe, national security connoisseur Tom Daschle said no. What's more, the top Democrat's casual attitude toward security matters hasn't been limited to shielding Bill Clinton from justice. Who can forget his stunning admission just months before the 9/11 attacks that scandal-scarred fellow Democrat Gary Condit was likely one of several congressmen who posed a national security risk. "But [Condit] is vulnerable to blackmail in his current situation," suggested "Meet the Press" host Tim Russert. "Well, he may be," confessed Daschle. "But there are probably others that are subject to blackmail as well." Gephardt was no better. Even after acknowledging publicly that Condit's scandalous private life had put his post on the House Intelligence Committee in jeopardy, the top House Dem declined to remove him. For the last ten years at least, the Democratic Party has been a national security disaster area. And every time he had a chance to change that, Tom Daschle did nothing.

To: TigerPaw who wrote (362099)	2/21/2003 2:50:11 PM
From: JakeStraw	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

Inhofe: Clinton Should be Held Accountable for Failure to Get Bin Laden Wes Vernon, WASHINGTON-A senior member of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence says ex-President Clinton should be held accountable for his decision during his presidency, to give terrorist leader Osama bin Laden a pass. That confession by the impeached 42nd president was revealed in a taped statement. Reacting to that tape, Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., in a statement relayed by his spokesman Gary Hoitsma, says Clinton’s comments constitute "an admission that he didn’t seriously go after Osama bin Laden,” although Clinton tried to justify it in "a self-serving” manner. Inhofe, who is also the ranking Republican on the Armed Services Committee’s Subcommittee on Readiness and Management Support, tells NewsMax that Clinton "is admitting that he didn’t go after them [al-Qaeda] when he could have, and he’s making excuses as to why he couldn’t or wouldn’t.” Asked how the former chief executive should be held accountable, Hoitsma, again speaking for the senator, replied, "We would want to do that in some way. It’s a matter of picking the right forum.” Presidents and ex-presidents are rarely called before congressional committees. At the moment the Intelligence Committee is looking into some things that went on in the intelligence community leading up to 9/11, although that probe "is not a matter of holding anyone accountable for wrongdoing or anything like that,” Hoitsma notes. Some lawmakers have privately complained to NewsMax.com that the Intelligence Committee channels so much of what it does through so many political filters so as to reach a consensus that very little is accomplished when it comes to pressing for accountability. Senator Inhofe says "objectively,” during the Clinton presidency, "not very much was done to deal with some of the terrorist incidents that had happened during that time.” Each time terrorist acts were committed, they were viewed by the Clintonites as law enforcement issues "instead of acts of war against America.” The Oklahoma conservative listed the first World Trade Center bombing in 1998, the Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia in 1996 (death toll: 17), the embassy bombings in Africa (killing over 200), and violent action against the USS Cole (leaving 17 American sailors dead). These attacks on Clinton’s watch were "downplayed,” and there were "never serious consequences for the perpetrators.” Inhofe sees 1998 as "the lost year,” when the entire country was focused on a single issue (the Monica Lewinsky scandal) "that had nothing to do with any serious public policy.” As the senator sees it, this was "when the [then] president was lying to the country [and under oath] about his personal problems,” and "dragged the country through the trauma of an impeachment trial.”

To: TigerPaw who wrote (362099)	2/21/2003 3:29:07 PM
From: JakeStraw	Respond to of 769670

CIA Officials Reveal What Went Wrong – Clinton to Blame Christopher Ruddy Of course we need to find why our security failed. This is basic. And unless the big media are consulting a psychic better than the one I use, no one knows what the future days, weeks and months may yield. This is not the worst-case scenario. A worst-case scenario is a 25-megaton nuclear bomb detonated in New York or a full-scale attack against the U.S.! These should not be ruled out. These dangers can be avoided, we pray, but only if we stop listening to the media idiots that feed us a diet of blow-dried nonsense. Is Katie Couric going to say how bad she feels for the terrorists who were driven to these cowardly acts? It is the big media and the hack politicians that led us to this nightmarish day. Smart to Examine Who Failed Us We are Americans, so let's get our feet back on the ground and use common sense. The media say we shouldn't point fingers. (Funny, isn't it, how the media have spent 30 years pointing fingers at Richard Nixon for his alleged crimes, but when one of their liberal favorites is due for some blame, they feed us the mantras like "Let's move on!" and "No time to point fingers!") Common sense, in fact, dictates that we need to critically examine the people who are to blame for this incident, both the perpetrators (and if you believe Osama bin Laden was the major mastermind behind this, I have a bridge in Brooklyn I want to sell you) and the people we pay to protect us – that is, our national security agencies. Without question, these agencies failed miserably in preventing this sophisticated, wide-scale and coordinated attack against America. Intelligence Agencies Failed Miserably Tuesday I received an e-mail from a recently retired high-ranking CIA official. I will identify him as "Harry": Here's what Harry said: "... Reacting effectively and justly to this [attack] makes us hugely dependent on intell [intelligence] capabilities that failed us miserably. This is an enormous liability, which we shall not be able to fix before we have to react. Payback time for the last eight years!" He continued: "There were clearly enormous failures here. This operation was ingenious in its simplicity, which would have limited the size (number of people, actions) of the operation and hence detectability. But it could not have been that small for at least a dozen men to hijack four carefully chosen aircraft (routes, fuel load) with carefully coordinated timing. And to get through security with knives big enough to subdue four relatively large crews. If the intell and security systems claim that this challenge is simply too hard for them, they have to be replaced, root and branch. Because this challenge is the challenge. It is now pretty self-evident that claims of reform and adjustment [at the intelligence agencies] to new realities that we've heard over the past eight years or so are hollow." Of course, it's obvious why the media doesn't want any finger pointing. Guess who ran the U.S. government and was responsible for our national security for the past eight years? Yes, you got it: Bill Clinton, Hillary's husband. Clinton Responsible for Unpreparedness The Clintons were supported vociferously by the media through the worst imaginable scandals. During that time I was one of the lead reporters opposing the Clintons. I was mocked and vilified by my colleagues for doing so. I said throughout that period that Bill Clinton's personal corruption was wholesale and mirrored how he was corrupting America's national security. I wrote articles and said repeatedly that America, sadly, may end up paying a heavy price for Bill Clinton and the major media's complicity. I don't believe the worst has passed with the incidents of today. We remain vulnerable and weak. Brutally, we witnessed our weakness today. During eight years, Clinton decimated America's military. Our forces were cut almost in half under his stewardship. Research and development on all new weapons systems were brought almost to a halt as other nations continued to build. Clinton destroyed nearly our entire arsenal of tactical nuclear weapons. Monsters like Saddam flourished as Clinton bombed aspirin factories, tent cities in Afghanistan and worthless radar stations in the Iraqi desert. These are open facts, easily verifiable.