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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JohnM who wrote (295)	5/2/2003 9:53:05 PM
From: Rollcast...	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 794220

50% of the American population Saddam was involved in 9-11. "Involved" had a broader connotation... more general, like "connected to" 9-11. Perhaps those ignorant masses were simply able to see the broader links between 9/11 and Iraq? Maybe they even saw how the removal of one of the most likely state sponsors of terrorism might decrease the chances of potential future 9/11's. Maybe they are more "nuanced" than all the "enlightened liberals" (particulary left wing academics) give them credit for? BTW - assuming you are right and 50% did feel Iraq was directly involved - why are you so confident Iraq was not? The anti-war/save Saddam crowd was also confident that the Blair government would fall, the Arab street would "rise up", and that there would be a cascade of terrorist attacks... Any reason to remain confident? Maybe they were just expressing hope that things would go badly for the US?

To: JohnM who wrote (295)	5/3/2003 1:50:30 AM
From: LindyBill	Respond to of 794220

NEW YORK TIMES NEWS ANALYSIS--1,638 Pages, but Little Weight in Supreme Court Based on their votes in recent cases, the justices now fall into roughly three camps. Three justices, Stephen G. Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and John Paul Stevens, have indicated sympathy with greater federal regulation of money in politics and are probably favorably disposed to at least some version of the soft money limits in the new law. Three other justices, Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia and Anthony M. Kennedy, have taken the view that Buckley v. Valeo permitted too much, not too little, federal regulation and they may agree with Judge Henderson's dissenting view in the new case that essentially all the regulations violate the First Amendment. The three remaining justices, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, Sandra Day O'Connor and David H. Souter, have appeared relatively content with the current framework. nytimes.com