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 : Stockman Scott's Political Debate Porch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: portage who wrote (19169)	5/15/2003 11:08:32 AM
From: Wharf Rat	Respond to of 89467

dfw.com Posted on Sun, May. 11, 2003 Yes, Virginia, the idea of a lying government is serious By Molly Ivins Creators Syndicate We ought to be beating our chests every day. We ought to look in a mirror and be proud, and stick out our chests and suck in our bellies, and say, "Damn, we're Americans!" Jay Garner Retired general and the man in charge of the American occupation of Iraq Thus it is with a sense of profound relief that one hears the news that Garner is about to be replaced by a civilian with nation-building experience. I realize that we have all been too busy with the Laci Peterson affair to notice that we're still sitting on a powder keg in Iraq, but there it is. In case you missed it, a million Iraqi Shiites recently made the pilgrimage to Karbala, screaming: "No to America!" Funny how media attention slips just at the diciest moments. I doubt that the United States was in this much danger at any point during the actual war. Whether this endeavor in Iraq will turn out to be worth the doing is now at a critical point, and the media have decided that it's no longer a story. Boy, are we not being served well by American journalism. Anent the current difficulties, Newsweek's report on Donald Rumsfeld's favorite Iraqi, Ahmad Chalabi, leaves one with the strong impression that we should not be putting all our eggs in that particular basket. But the weirdest media reaction of all is to the ongoing non-appearance of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. More and more stories quoting ever-unnamed administration officials appear saying that the administration would be "amazed if we found weapons-grade plutonium or uranium" and that finding large volumes of chemical or biological material is "unlikely." Look, if there are no WMDs in Iraq, it means either our government lied us to us in order to get us into an unnecessary war or the government itself was disastrously misinformed by an incompetent intelligence apparatus. In either case, it's a terribly serious situation. What I cannot believe is that respected journalists -- most notably Tom Friedman, a two-time Pulitzer Prize winner -- would simply dismiss the nonexistent WMDs as though it made no difference. Of course it matters if our government lies to us. Why do you think people were so angry at Lyndon Johnson over the Gulf of Tonkin? At Richard Nixon over the "secret war" in Cambodia? Even at Bill Clinton over the less cosmic matter of whether he had sex with "that woman." If it makes no difference whether the government lied, why is Friedman a journalist? Why does journalism exist at all? Nonexistent WMDs also present us with a huge international credibility problem -- particularly given that the Bush administration now feels entitled to "punish" those countries that did not join the "coalition of the willing," as we so preciously called those who caved in to our threats to cut off foreign aid. Come on, think about this. The Bush administration apparently feels entitled to take actions punishing close old friends, including Mexico and Canada -- not to mention the Europeans -- for not siding with us in a war that we may have lied about? This is not going to sit well with the rest of the world. Sy Hersh's reportage in the current New Yorker should be read carefully. The Friedman camp's reasoning on "lies don't matter" is that Saddam Hussein was such a miserable scum that taking him out was worthy in and of itself. As a human rights supporter all these years, I made that argument, too. I even made it when the Reagan administration was giving Saddam WMDs. But that was not the case made by President Bush. He said that Saddam was a clear and present danger who posed an imminent threat to the United States because he had chemical and biological weapons that he was prepared to hand over to terrorists at any moment. The administration detailed those weapons with excruciating precision: 5,000 gallons of anthrax; several tons of VX nerve gas; between 100 and 500 tons of other toxins, including botulinin, mustard gas, ricin and Sarin; 15 to 20 Scud missiles; drones fitted with poison sprays; and mobile chemical laboratories. The reason that Bush could not make the human rights case against Saddam (as Tony Blair did) is because we're still supplying other monsters with weaponry. (Algeria, anyone?) John Quincy Adams said, "We go not abroad in search of monsters to destroy." We shouldn't help create them, either. Maybe we can learn that much from Saddam Hussein. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Molly Ivins writes for Creators Syndicate. 5777 W. Century Blvd., Suite 700, Los Angeles, CA 90045

To: portage who wrote (19169)	5/15/2003 12:02:02 PM
From: T L Comiskey	Respond to of 89467

LOL...Rummywood.... Cheneywood Georgiewood Hollywood....... Show me the Money T

To: portage who wrote (19169)	5/15/2003 4:12:30 PM
From: T L Comiskey	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 89467

A frog goes into a bank and approaches the teller. He can see from her name plate that the teller's name is Patricia Whack. So, he says, "Mrs.Whack, I'd like to get a loan to buy a boat and go on a long vacation." Patti looks at the frog in disbelief and asks how much he wants to borrow. The frog says "$30,000." The teller asks his name and the frog says that his name is Kermit Jagger, his dad is Mick Jagger, and that it is OK, he knows the bank manager. Patti explains that $30,000 is a substantial amount of money and that he will need to secure some collateral against the loan. She asks if he has anything he can use as collateral. The frog says, "Sure. I have this," and produces a tiny pink porcelain elephant, about half an inch tall. Bright pink and perfectly formed. Very confused, Patti explains that she'll have to consult with the manager and disappears into a back office. She finds the manager and says: "There is a frog called Kermit Jagger out there who claims to know you and wants to borrow $30,000. And he wants to use this as collateral." She holds up the tiny pink elephant. "I mean, what the heck is this?" (are you ready?) (are you sure?) (you're gonna hate me!) The bank manager looks back at her and says, "It's a knick knack, Patti Whack. Give the frog a loan. His old man's a rolling stone."

To: portage who wrote (19169)	5/15/2003 10:36:49 PM
From: Raymond Duray	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 89467

SAVING PRIVATE LYNCH portage, Thanks for the Guardian story on Private Jessica Lynch. I've been following that story. It never ceases to amaze me what the DoD thinks it can get away with these days. The Guardian story nicely corroborates one from the Toronto Star last week. Message 18918289 Here's some covering chatter from a CNN report. Message 18928342 Amnesia, huh? More like brainwashing not fully complete. <g> ************* Sources: thestar.com CNN: Link has been changed: edition.cnn.com