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: Don Hurst who wrote (401981)	5/2/2003 12:26:32 PM
From: JakeStraw	Respond to of 769670

>>were going to have problems with a two bit dictator who had crumbled in 91 Then why were the majority of democrats whining about expecting the war to go on longer than expected?

To: Don Hurst who wrote (401981)	5/2/2003 12:31:00 PM
From: Bill	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769670

Left was wrong about Iraq By Bill Roe Carolina Morning News The war in Iraq for all intents and purposes is over. What have we learned from the three weeks that the coalition forces took to oust the Saddam Hussein regime? First, there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. The primary weapon of mass destruction was Saddam Hussein, a violent tyrant who thought nothing of gassing or torturing his own people. Second, we can see clearly the other real losers - the left wing of the political spectrum. Chief loser was the so-called "intellectual left" from the movie industry and mass media. Evidence shows the atrocities perpetrated by Hussein and his regime are comparable to the SS of Hitler's Germany. People being buried alive, women and children butchered. Yet it became obvious the left cared more about condemning our president than acknowledging that they had lined up on the wrong side of history. Janeane Garofalo has already admitted that ranting and raving about the coalition forces entering Baghdad helped give her faltering television career a boost. I beg to differ. Her pilot for ABC will never make it. She is to television what Jane Fonda was to movies. Another with a credibility gap is "Baghdad Bob," or Tim Robbins. In an article in the left-leaning Guardian newspaper, he whined about how his family had suffered after he and his wife Susan Sarandon made comments attacking our president. He also told a radio station about reports of death threats against prominent anti-war activists. One has never heard Robbins speak out about how Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas' life was threatened when speaking at Eastern universities. Robbins wants to get back to the old days of left-of-center reporting by the major networks. The public has choice now. The dials have shown that ABC, CBS and NBC have lost their credibility. Let's look at the credibility scorecard: The left has said we were fighting for the oil. Wrong. Iraq will control its own oil. The left said our battle plan was in tatters. Wrong. The left said the battle could last for years. Wrong. The left has said America and its coalition partners would end up in a quagmire. Wrong. The left said that Saddam had fanatical support. Wrong. The left said the Iraqi army would fight for every inch of soil. Wrong. The left said we would not receive a welcome from the Iraqi populace. Wrong. Some "left-friends," such as the editor of Salon.com, admitted they had hoped for more resistance and more body bags. Wrong (and heinous as well). The left hoped the war would be the death knell to the Bush presidency. Wrong. The left said there was no connection between Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. Captured documents say otherwise. Very wrong. The left says reconstruction of Iraq will fail. Time will tell, but this writer hopes that the people of Iraq will form a new country of opportunity, guided by the efforts of enlightened self-government. The left will never admit that it was wrong. The left will never admit their actions gave aid and comfort to the enemy, thereby putting our young men and women in jeopardy. lowcountrynow.com

To: Don Hurst who wrote (401981)	5/2/2003 12:39:27 PM
From: JakeStraw	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

Bush's Carrier Visit Contrasts with Clinton's Friday May 2, 2003; 7:12 a.m. EDT The left is livid at the political masterstroke that was President Bush's visit to the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln on Thursday - with some complaining it was a cynical misuse of military personnel and equipment. But Bush isn't the only president to attempt to use the powerful imagery of a flight deck lined with saluting troops to burnish his image as commander-in-chief. In fact, Bill Clinton tried to do the same thing in March 1993, when he and his White House entourage visited the USS Theodore Roosevelt. However, instead of creating the inspiring image of a commander-in-chief adored by his troops, the Clinton gang managed to leave just the opposite impression, by looting the Roosevelt for souvenirs like it was a cheap Holiday Inn. "I think I need to be here because I'm commander in chief," Clinton told reporters, as his aides ventured below decks and swiped towels, bath robes and other Navy accouterments embossed with the Roosevelt's name and call letters. "The trip supplied television footage of Clinton in a green flight jacket watching fighter jets catapult off the carrier, of Clinton saluting a guided missile destroyer as it sailed by, of Clinton in a USS Theodore Roosevelt cap addressing the crew on the hangar deck," reported the Washington Post the next day. It also supplied Clinton aides with a treasure trove of priceless military memorabilia - taken in the same spirit, no doubt, that Clintonistas would invoke eight years later when they trashed the White House on their way out the door. Even before it became known that Clinton aides had helped themselves to everything that wasn't nailed down, the Roosevelt's crew sounded less than impressed by the president's visit. "Maybe we can call this his military service," the carrier's Cmdr. Bill Gortney told Newsweek. "Three hours is more than he had before."