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: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (402942)	5/5/2003 2:53:33 PM
From: JakeStraw	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

"Divisions among Democrats on display during the first presidential primary debate Saturday night delighted Republicans, who hope the party's internal squabbles on national security, health care, and taxes will hobble its nominee and bolster President Bush's chances for reelection. ''We need more Democratic debates,'' Senator Lindsay Graham, Republican of South Carolina, said yesterday on ABC's ''This Week.'' ''I believe they should debate every week between now and the election.'' Indeed, the nine Democratic candidates for their party's nomination couldn't keep from attacking one another during the debate,...

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (402942)	5/5/2003 2:57:07 PM
From: Jerrel Peters	Respond to of 769670

It doesn't matter what you feel. A lot of people feel like the boogey man is stalking them. The only thing that matters is that Conservative Republicans hold and gain power over next 12 years so that people are safer and their freedom from hostile enemies is continued. The Bush team winning!

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (402942)	5/5/2003 3:48:44 PM
From: JakeStraw	Respond to of 769670

"Whether the Democrats will do so in the fall of 2004 remains an open question. The Clintons’ never-ending marital soap opera—soon to be front and center again—is one reason. But so is his image on military matters. He has praised Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, but is reviled by many military men and women—at a time when they are popular. They know his history, which includes a questionable escape from the draft and a stint in the 1972 antiwar presidential campaign of George McGovern. It’s not a history that most of this year’s crop of candidates will be eager to invoke. Kerry, for example, doesn’t advertise the fact—indeed, he says he does not remember—that he had campaigned for McGovern in at least one Democratic primary that year, in Oregon."

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (402942)	5/5/2003 3:52:12 PM
From: JakeStraw	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

Supreme Court Revives Clintons' Vince Foster Scandal Monday, May 5, 2003 Are Bill and Hillary Clinton sweating now that the Supreme Court today revived the controversy over Vince Foster's death? Urged by the Bush administration, the court said it would decide in autumn whether the government must release post-mortem pictures of the Clinton White House attorney's "suicide." At stake is "the privacy interest of millions of individuals, about whom personal and sensitive information is stored in government files," Solicitor General Theodore Olson told the court. Olson insisted that five investigations had showed Foster killed himself and that a sixth inquiry "by an unsatisfied private citizen" seemed unnecessary. But for the whole story, see Christopher Ruddy's "The Strange Death of Vincent Foster." Accuracy in Media, a public interest group that maintained Foster's suicide note was a forgery, filed a request with Park Police seeking autopsy photographs and photos of Foster's body at Fort Marcy Park in McLean, Va. The government refused, and a federal appeals court in Washington agreed. The court claimed the pictures were exempted from the mandatory disclosure provisions of the Freedom of Information Act. AIM said it wanted the photos to uncover "government foul play," but unless the group had compelling evidence there was not enough reason to justify an invasion of privacy, the appeals court said. Attorney Allan J. Favish, who represented AIM, then filed his own FOIA request with the independent counsel's office to obtain the photos. When the office refused, Favish filed suit in federal court in Los Angeles. Though a federal judge again said that there was no evidence justifying the invasion of privacy, a divided appeals court panel reversed and said evidence was not necessary. When the case was sent back to trial court, the judge, under the appeals court's guidance, ordered the release of five of the 10 photographs of Foster's body, including one that had been published in Time magazine. The government, joined by members of Foster's family, appealed. This time, an appeals court panel ordered the release of nine of the 10 photos. When the full U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, with headquarters in San Francisco, refused to hear the case, the government asked the Supreme Court for review.