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.

Pastimes : The Boxing Ring Revived -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Rambi who wrote (6765)	7/10/2003 10:49:17 AM
From: epicure	Respond to of 7720

I'm stealing that. :-)

To: Rambi who wrote (6765)	7/10/2003 11:26:47 AM
From: TimF	Respond to of 7720

THOUSANDS OF SADDAMS SURRENDER $25 Million Bounty ‘Motivating Factor,’ Officials Believe Just hours after the U.S. announced a $25 million reward for the capture of former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, thousands of Saddam Husseins surrendered to the American authorities in Baghdad, officials said today. U.S. officials admitted that the mob of Saddam Hussein look-alikes presenting themselves to claim the reward was “an unexpected consequence” of announcing the $25 million bounty. Overwhelmed by the volume of surrendering Saddams, the U.S. was forced to set up a “temporary Saddam Hussein processing center” in a former government building, with a line of Saddams snaking around the block. Interviews with a handful of the nearly three thousand Saddams indicated that the $25 million reward was a key motivation behind their decision to turn themselves in. “Any Saddam Hussein who says he’s not doing it for the money is a liar,” said Saddam Hussein, 57, of Basra. But Saddam Hussein, 74, of Mosul, offered a slightly different assessment. “It’s time for the Iraqi people to move on, and I’m here to help them do that,” said Mr. Hussein, moments before getting into a shouting match with Saddam Hussein, 43, of Kirkut, who snapped, “I’m the real Saddam Hussein, grandpa!” “I was Saddam Hussein when you were still in diapers, punk!” the elder Mr. Hussein shot back. Interim administrator L. Paul Bremer told reporters that the U.S. might consider divvying up the $25 million reward money among the several thousand Saddams, but only if they could offer “reasonable assurances” that they might in fact be Saddam Hussein. “Quite frankly, some of these guys look more like Tom Selleck after a rough night,” Mr. Bremer said. borowitzreport.com

To: Rambi who wrote (6765)	7/10/2003 4:42:49 PM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 7720

The only thing he forgot to mention was that Bush gave this speech while standing in the Rose Garden.

To: Rambi who wrote (6765)	7/16/2003 7:07:35 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 7720

Since I am on the record as being smitten my Michael Kinsley, that will be my excuse for posting the following. Either that or because I think it's just too funny not to share with you. ...Or More Lies From The Usual Suspects? By Michael Kinsley Wednesday, July 16, 2003; Page A23 Once again a mysterious criminal stalks the nation's capital. First there was the mystery sniper. Then there was the mystery arsonist. Now there is the mystery ventriloquist. The media are in a frenzy of speculation and leakage. Senators are calling for hearings. All of Washington demands an answer: Who was the arch-fiend who told a lie in President Bush's State of the Union speech? No investigation has plumbed such depths of the unknown since O.J. Simpson's hunt for the real killer of his ex-wife. Whodunit? Was it Colonel Mustard in the kitchen with a candlestick? Condoleezza Rice in the Situation Room with a bottle of Wite-Out and a felt-tipped pen? Linguists note that the question "Who lied in George Bush's State of the Union speech" bears a certain resemblance to the famous conundrum "Who is buried in Grant's Tomb?" They speculate that the two questions may have parallel answers. But philosophers are still struggling to properly analyze the Grant's Tomb issue -- let alone answer it. And experts say that even when this famous 19th century presidential puzzle is solved, it could be many years before the findings can be applied with any confidence to presidents of more recent vintage. Lacking any real-life analogy that sufficiently captures the complexity of the Speech-gate puzzle and the challenge facing investigators dedicated to solving it, political scientists say the best comparison may be to the assassination of Major Strasser in the film "Casablanca." If you recall, Humphrey Bogart is standing over the body, holding a smoking gun. Claude Rains says, "Major Strasser has been shot! Round up the usual suspects." And yet the mystery of who killed the general is never solved. Ever since Watergate, a smoking gun has been the standard for judging a Washington scandal. Many a miscreant has escaped with his reputation undamaged -- or even enhanced by the publicity and pseudo-vindication -- because there was no "smoking gun" such as the Watergate tapes. But now it seems that standard has been lifted. You would think that on the question of who told a lie in a speech, evidence seen on TV by millions of people, might count for something. Apparently not. The Bush administration borrows from Groucho: "Who are you going to believe -- us or your own two eyes?" The case for the defense is a classic illustration of what lawyers call "arguing in the alternative." The Bushies say (1) it wasn't really a lie, (2) someone else told the lie and (3) the lie doesn't matter. All these defenses are invalid. (1) Bushies fanned out to the weekend talk shows to note, as if with one voice, that what Bush said was technically accurate. But it was not accurate, even technically. The words in question were: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." Bush didn't say it was true, you see -- he just said the Brits said it. This is a contemptible argument in any event. But to descend to the administration's level of nitpicking, the argument simply doesn't work. Bush didn't say that the Brits "said" this Africa business -- he said they "learned" it. The difference between "said" and "learned" is that "learned" clearly means there is some preexisting basis for believing whatever-it-is, apart from the fact that someone said it. Is it theoretically possible to "learn" something that is not true? I'm not sure. But it certainly is not possible to say that someone has "learned" a piece of information without clearly intending to imply that you, the speaker, wish the listener to accept it as true. Bush expressed no skepticism or doubt, even though the Brits qualification was added as protection only because doubts had been expressed internally. (2) The Bush argument blaming the CIA for failing to remove this falsehood from the president's speech is based on the logic of "stop me before I lie again." Bush spoke the words, his staff wrote them, those involved carefully overlooked reasons for skepticism. It would have been nice if the CIA had caught this falsehood, but its failure to do so hardly exonerates others. Furthermore, the CIA is part of the executive branch, as is the White House staff. If the president can disown anything he says that he didn't actually find out or think up and write down all by himself, he is more or less beyond criticism. Which seems to be the idea here. The president says he has not lost his confidence in CIA Director George Tenet. How sweet. If someone backed me up in a lie and then took the fall for me when it was exposed, I'd have confidence in him too. (3) The final argument: It was only 16 words! What's the big deal? The bulk of the case for war remains intact. Logically, of course, this argument will work for any single thread of the pro-war argument. Perhaps the president will tell us which particular points among those he and his administration have made are the ones we are supposed to take seriously. Or how many gimmes he feels entitled to take in the course of this game. Is it a matter of word count? When he hits 100 words, say, are we entitled to assume that he cares whether the words are true? © 2003 The Washington Post Company