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.

Technology Stocks : Amazon.com, Inc. (AMZN) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Oeconomicus who wrote (158465)	7/10/2003 10:43:39 PM
From: Victor Lazlo	Respond to of 164684

But that's the point. People mostly think of VT as skiing, maple syrup, covered bridges, and a one-horse open sleigh through the snow.. But most of VT is quite poor, and there are virtually no opportunities for people to move ahead economically. Nil. The ski resorts are owned by syndacates basesd not in Vermont. The status-quo elite who already made their $$ elsewhere, many of them from NY and other out of state locales, pretty much control things in VT. Howard Dean himself is from NY. <<Never been to the Northeast Kingdom, though. >> yup, Newport VT is quite a place. I don't imagine skeeter has been there.

To: Oeconomicus who wrote (158465)	7/11/2003 1:31:04 AM
From: GST	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 164684

Franks: 10-25 Attacks a Day on U.S. Troops in Iraq Thu Jul 10, 6:25 PM ET story.news.yahoo.com

To: Oeconomicus who wrote (158465)	7/11/2003 1:28:03 PM
From: GST	Respond to of 164684

<<if an administration is seen to have bent the truth to justify one course of action, how confident can Americans -- and the world -- be that it won't do the same to justify other actions?>> Editorial: Credibility gap (II) Who put the uranium in Bush's speech? Bee Editorial Staff Published 2:15 a.m. PDT Thursday, July 10, 2003 The Bush administration now admits what has been evident for some time: An intelligence report, cited by President Bush in his State of the Union address last January claiming that Iraq had tried to buy uranium from Niger to restart a nuclear weapons program, relied on documents that were crude forgeries. Accordingly, the administration now says, the claim should not have been included in the president's speech. But the White House still says it did not know until after Bush's speech that the intelligence was faulty. It has not said what other source or sources it relied on besides a British intelligence report that Bush cited -- and that a House of Commons inquiry found to be flawed. And it's still a mystery how the passage about the uranium got into the speech and why it was included when the CIA had already debunked it. It's hard to believe that word of the uranium report's bogus nature simply didn't get to the right place in time. After all, Vice President Dick Cheney's office reportedly asked the CIA to look into it; the CIA in turn asked a former diplomat, Joseph Wilson, to visit Niger and check it out. He did, in early 2002, nearly a year before Bush's speech, and came away convinced that the report was a forgery. The U.S. ambassador to Niger also believed it to be bogus and said so to Washington. Wilson says he has "every confidence" that his report was "circulated to the appropriate officials within our government." Others are more blunt. They believe the administration decided early on to oust Saddam Hussein, that Bush's request for the backing of Congress and the United Nations Security Council was window dressing and that citing weapons of mass destruction was a pretext for making Iraq part of this country's anti-terrorist counteroffensive -- and the administration's effort to reassert a U.S. superiority that the Bush team believed had been undermined by President Clinton. Even assuming a moral justification for the United States arrogating to itself the task of going after "evildoers" around the globe, undertaking it on false pretenses risks losing support from others when it's most needed -- as today in Iraq and perhaps elsewhere tomorrow -- and assuming military and economic burdens that even the sole superpower is incapable of carrying. The administration has used the terrorist threat -- which is real -- as previous administrations used the threat of communism: to keep the American people on alert and willing to make sacrifices in the name of security. How high that price may be in the post-9/11 world is not clear. But The question resonates loudly at a time when the United States has locked up hundreds of foreigners on the basis of evidence that is being kept secret, and may be forever. sacbee.com

To: Oeconomicus who wrote (158465)	7/11/2003 2:07:02 PM
From: GST	Respond to of 164684

Questioning the case for war Published July 10, 2003 Like any good salesman, President Bush highlighted the facts that made the most compelling case as he sold the American people on the urgent need for war against Iraq. In his State of the Union address in January, he spoke of 38,000 liters of the deadly botulinum toxin and as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent--all unaccounted for by Saddam Hussein. He spoke of Hussein's continued quest to build nuclear weapons. He and his administration made the case forcefully for months, at the United Nations and elsewhere, using an impressive array of intelligence reports and satellite photos. Many Americans were convinced, as was this editorial page. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For several weeks, however, the case that Bush & Co. made has been coming under intense scrutiny, with suggestions that the president deliberately exaggerated some evidence or misrepresented intelligence reports to gild the arguments for war. After weeks of denying those charges, the White House acknowledged Monday that one of the president's points in his State of the Union address may have been mistaken. That claim: that Hussein had attempted to buy uranium for a nuclear weapon from a nation in Africa. White House officials wouldn't say how the president came to use the erroneous information or when he knew that the assertion was probably wrong. Bush and his team didn't fess up voluntarily. They were compelled to respond to an account in Sunday's New York Times by Joseph Wilson, a former American ambassador who was enlisted by the CIA last year to travel to Niger to investigate claims that Hussein had tried to buy the uranium. Wilson wrote that he found no evidence for those claims and shared his skepticism in briefings with the CIA and other agencies. Nevertheless, almost a year later, Bush cited that information in his speech. Top officials, including National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, deny that they or the president knew of Wilson's findings before he delivered the speech. But Wilson wrote that "Based on my experience . . . I have little choice but to conclude that some of the intelligence related to Iraq's nuclear weapons program was twisted to exaggerate the Iraqi threat." That is a logical--and deeply disturbing--conclusion. The African uranium claim is not the only statement in question. The president asserted that Hussein had attempted to buy high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production. That claim was disputed by the International Atomic Energy Agency, and now is widely viewed as doubtful. The Pentagon has acknowledged that a Defense Intelligence Agency study last December couldn't pinpoint evidence of Iraqi weapons sites, though administration pronouncements at the time seemed far more certain of their existence. With all those questions, it's natural to wonder what other errors--intentional or not--crept into the president's case for war. Prime Minister Tony Blair faces similar scrutiny in Britain. Bush insists that those who raise such questions are ignoring the preponderance of the evidence, which clearly showed Hussein posed a threat to the world. There was, indeed, a strong case, starting with Hussein's longstanding defiance of UN resolutions and cat-and-mouse game with UN weapons inspectors. Bush also complains that this debate is charged with political partisanship. Yes, in some quarters, it surely is. But Bush seriously miscalculates if he chalks up the rising din of questions only to those who opposed the war. This debate goes to the president's most precious asset: his credibility. The American people deserve a full accounting of the evidence. Were mistaken assertions based on faulty intelligence reports or was there a deliberate effort to trump up evidence to make the case for war? It's time for the administration to scrub down every piece of evidence it made public and level with the American public about what, if anything, was exaggerated to make the case for war. Instead of dodging questions and branding critics "revisionist historians," Bush must cooperate with congressional inquiries and diligently work to set the record straight. Bush has enjoyed the patience and the support of a majority of the American public. But that patience can run thin. Americans know the hunt for weapons of mass destruction isn't over yet. They realize that no intelligence report is perfect; that such reports can be misleading or flat-out wrong. They understand that mistakenly using a faulty intelligence report does not automatically lead to the conclusion that much of the evidence for war was twisted or intentionally misused. But they also know a too-slick sales job when they see one. History is full of presidents who fudged facts to advance objectives--be it declaring a war or more mundane domestic matters. These questions will not fade. If anything, as the presidential campaign heats up, these kinds of questions will only grow louder. If some of the intelligence Bush used was faulty or incomplete--as it seems to have been-- he should say so and explain why. If he made mistakes, he should admit them. Bluster and bravado will not suffice. He must put to rest any suspicions that Americans accepted an argument for war that was built on a lie. chicagotribune.com

To: Oeconomicus who wrote (158465)	7/11/2003 10:51:33 PM
From: GST	Respond to of 164684

<<Bush had "faith-based" intelligence on Iraq: arms expert>> story.news.yahoo.com

To: Oeconomicus who wrote (158465)	7/11/2003 10:55:55 PM
From: GST	Respond to of 164684

<<Blame America for conflict in Liberia, too By GERALD CAPLAN Friday, July 11, 2003 - Page A15 I once drove across West Africa from Sierra Leone to Nigeria, where I was living as director of the CUSO-Nigeria program. Even at the time, it was an extraordinarily reckless venture. Today, the very idea of such a journey is ludicrous. Sierra Leone? Liberia? Ivory Coast? Guinea? All are in turmoil. That's why there's such pressure on President George W. Bush to intervene against Liberian President Charles Taylor, who is responsible for much of the conflict in all four countries. What is less known is that the U.S. is substantially responsible for Charles Taylor. Tyrants don't materialize out of the blue. They're a product of their circumstances, just as ordinary men and young boys don't turn into sadistic killers unless they've been brutalized. Liberia has been cursed with almost a century and a half of appalling governments that have been actively supported by the U.S. for all but the last decade. That's how a Charles Taylor became possible. Liberia was created in 1821 by Americans who wanted to rid the U.S. of some of its black slave population. About 20,000 ex-slaves were repatriated to a continent they had never known, where they proceeded to grab the best land for themselves and treat the local Africans as savages. Clearly, even as slaves, they had been Americanized with remarkable success. Formally, Liberia was one of the rare African states that didn't become a European colony. In a country of perhaps two million souls, the elite descendants of the Americo-Liberian settlers numbered between 20,000 and 40,000 people. Their role was to support whatever American interests wanted. In 1926, in return for generous considerations, they bestowed on the Firestone and Goodrich companies a 99-year lease for the world's largest rubber estate, which was duly protected by the might of the U.S. Navy. The Cold War gave a renewed lease of life to Liberia's venal and oppressive elite. Even while Firestone methodically looted the country's natural resources and forced labour became the preferred form of industrial relations, American paranoia about Africa falling prey to Soviet blandishments knew few bounds. The consequences for the entire continent were devastating. For 40 years the U.S. embraced and bolstered a series of vicious dictatorships and nihilistic rebels. In Liberia, America's apparent strategic interest meant a new deal with its Americo-Liberian friends. In return for U.S. generosity, the Americo-Liberians allowed the Americans to turn their little country into a key Cold War outpost in Africa. While the ruling clique thrived in Monrovia, the seedy old capital, the country stagnated and the vast majority of rural Liberians simmered with resentment. Against the ethnic exclusivism of the Americo-Liberians, other Liberians turned in solidarity to their own ethnic groups or, as Westerners prefer saying, their tribes. In 1980, a little-known, barely educated sergeant named Samuel Doe, who had been trained by the American Green Berets, stormed the president's mansion, disemboweled the corrupt old head of state, turned the country into the preserve of his own small ethnic group, and was promptly embraced by the United States. Samuel Doe was dumb as a door, yet savvy enough to protect American interests as his predecessors had done. A grateful America responded. Between 1980 and 1985, this brutal, tyrannical, destructive regime received more than $5-billion from the U.S. -- more per capita than any other country in Africa. Mr. Doe's successor, Mr. Taylor, indicted for crimes against humanity, is another benchmark. He is one of many American chickens coming home to roost in Africa. The Bush administration now believes it needs Africa to combat terrorism, as a giant market for American products, and for its abundance of high-quality oil. It needs Liberia to be stable. But after a century of American-backed regimes and corporations, the Liberian people also need to become a nation again -- an enormously difficult and expensive project. Mr. Bush should intervene not out of great humanitarian motives, but out of basic accountability. For damages knowingly incurred, his country owes Liberians compensation in full. Gerald Caplan is the author of Rwanda: The Preventable Genocide. globeandmail.com

To: Oeconomicus who wrote (158465)	7/12/2003 3:24:35 AM
From: GST	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 164684

Poll: Majority in U.S. Think Iraq Casualties Too High WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Over half of 1,006 Americans surveyed said the level of U.S. casualties in Iraq (news - web sites) was unacceptable, a new poll by ABC News and the Washington Post said on Friday. The results of the survey pointed to rising concern over American casualties in Iraq, falling confidence in the Bush administration, and increasing doubt over whether the war launched by U.S.-led forces in March was worth fighting. story.news.yahoo.com

To: Oeconomicus who wrote (158465)	7/12/2003 3:31:45 PM
From: GST	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 164684

<<Now the American people need to know how the accusation got into the speech in the first place, and whether it was put there with an intent to deceive the nation>> <<The Uranium Fiction We're glad that someone in Washington has finally taken responsibility for letting President Bush make a false accusation about Saddam Hussein's nuclear weapons program in the State of the Union address last January, but the matter will not end there. George Tenet, the director of central intelligence, stepped up to the issue yesterday when he said the C.I.A. had approved Mr. Bush's speech and failed to advise him to drop the mistaken charge that Iraq had recently tried to import significant quantities of uranium from an African nation, later identified as Niger. Now the American people need to know how the accusation got into the speech in the first place, and whether it was put there with an intent to deceive the nation. The White House has a lot of explaining to do. So far, the administration's handling of this important — and politically explosive — issue has mostly involved a great deal of finger-pointing instead of an exacting reconstruction of events and an acceptance of blame by all those responsible. Mr. Bush himself engaged in the free-for-all yesterday while traveling in Africa when he said his speech had been "cleared by the intelligence services." That led within a few hours to Mr. Tenet's mea culpa. It is clear, however, that much more went into this affair than the failure of the C.I.A. to pounce on the offending 16 words in Mr. Bush's speech. A good deal of information already points to a willful effort by the war camp in the administration to pump up an accusation that seemed shaky from the outset and that was pretty well discredited long before Mr. Bush stepped into the well of the House of Representatives last January. Doubts about the accusation were raised in March 2002 by Joseph Wilson 4th, a former American diplomat, after he was dispatched to Niger by the C.I.A. to look into the issue. Mr. Wilson has said he is confident that his concerns were circulated not only within the agency but also at the State Department and the office of Vice President Dick Cheney. Mr. Tenet, in his statement yesterday, confirmed that the Wilson findings had been given wide distribution, although he reported that Mr. Bush, Mr. Cheney and other high officials had not been directly informed about them by the C.I.A. The uranium charge should never have found its way into Mr. Bush's speech. Determining how it got there is essential to understanding whether the administration engaged in a deliberate effort to mislead the nation about the Iraqi threat.

To: Oeconomicus who wrote (158465)	7/12/2003 3:34:07 PM
From: GST	Respond to of 164684

<<Determining how it got there is essential to understanding whether the administration engaged in a deliberate effort to mislead the nation about the Iraqi threat.>>

To: Oeconomicus who wrote (158465)	7/12/2003 3:55:37 PM
From: GST	Respond to of 164684

<<Pentagon had no detailed plans for postwar Iraq: report WASHINGTON (AFP) - Pentagon (news - web sites) planners failed to develop detailed plans for postwar Iraq (news - web sites) because they were convinced Iraqis would welcome US troops and that a hand-picked exile leader would replace Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) and impose order. story.news.yahoo.com

To: Oeconomicus who wrote (158465)	7/13/2003 8:23:50 PM
From: GST	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 164684

CIA Got Uranium Reference Cut in Oct. Why Bush Cited It In Jan. Is Unclear By Walter Pincus and Mike Allen Washington Post Staff Writers Sunday, July 13, 2003; Page A01 CIA Director George J. Tenet successfully intervened with White House officials to have a reference to Iraq seeking uranium from Niger removed from a presidential speech last October, three months before a less specific reference to the same intelligence appeared in the State of the Union address, according to senior administration officials. Tenet argued personally to White House officials, including deputy national security adviser Stephen Hadley, that the allegation should not be used because it came from only a single source, according to one senior official. Another senior official with knowledge of the intelligence said the CIA had doubts about the accuracy of the documents underlying the allegation, which months later turned out to be forged. The new disclosure suggests how eager the White House was in January to make Iraq's nuclear program a part of its case against Saddam Hussein even in the face of earlier objections by its own CIA director. It also appears to raise questions about the administration's explanation of how the faulty allegations were included in the State of the Union speech. washingtonpost.com