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: American Spirit who wrote (425509)	7/10/2003 11:13:50 PM
From: PROLIFE	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

you better look again, pn. If I needed to learn to lie, all I would have to do is watch you.

To: American Spirit who wrote (425509)	7/10/2003 11:15:27 PM
From: PROLIFE	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

Anti-Patriot Feminists By Chris Weinkopf FrontPageMagazine.com \| July 10, 2003 MOST OF THE GROUPS that adamantly oppose the USA PATRIOT Act are oriented toward worrying more about terrorists’ civil liberties than their murderous intentions: The ACLU, People for the American Way, Human Rights Watch. Then there are some whose connection to the anti-anti-terrorist movement are less clear. Chief among them: the National Organization for Women. NOW is a feminist organization. It exists to promote and defend “women’s rights,” however perversely it defines them. It’s hard to see what domestic anti-terror legislation that primarily affects Middle Eastern men would have to do with NOW’s agenda. Harder still is to fathom why NOW members would get hung up over a law that the government has effectively used to thwart and capture Islamofascist operatives working to engineer the next 9/11 and forcibly put American women under the burqa. After all, it’s not as though Islamofascists and feminists make for natural allies. If radical Muslims most despise Jews and Americans, their hatred for women of all religions and nationalities probably ranks a close third. “Women’s rights,” is, for them, a blasphemous oxymoron. One of the qualities of Western society they most detest is the freedom of women to do such radical things as drive, vote, and show their faces in public. In his will, Sept. 11 mastermind Mohammad Atta insisted that no women ever be allowed to touch his corpse, or even attend his funeral—although he fully expected that dozens of submissive virgins would be waiting for him in that special paradise reserved for Islamofascist “martyrs.” But sure enough, NOW has joined the anti-PATRIOT Act chorus. Chapters across the country have promoted various local resolutions encouraging police not to cooperate with federal anti-terror investigations. When NOW issued a proclamation preemptively denouncing the liberation of Iraq, it included a line condemning “the draconian homeland defense policies promoted by the Bush administration, and already enacted by Congress in the form of the Patriot Act.” Such policies, the resolution said, “are designed in part to stifle political dissent.” NOW’s Progressive Agenda for Peace echoes the same theme, calling on feminists far and wide to “expose the stifling of political dissent by the Bush Administration through such policies as the USA Patriot Act.” Stifling political dissent? There are, to be sure, sincere opponents with valid objections to the PATRIOT Act and its potential for abuse. Yet anyone who pretends that the law’s “purpose,” either in part or in whole, is to trample the First Amendment rights of those who disagree with the Bush Administration is engaging in heavy-duty—and baseless—fear-mongering. The PATRIOT Act sailed through Congress with overwhelming bipartisan support. It garnered a single negative vote in the Senate, and won the support from some of the Administration’s most strident critics, including Ted Kennedy and Robert Byrd. Congress approved the law six weeks after 9/11 with one unmistakable purpose: combating terrorism. That purpose bears zero relation to “stifling dissent”—unless one’s definition of dissent includes piloting hijacked airliners into densely populated buildings and incinerating thousands of innocent people. And, for what it’s worth, less than two years since the PATRIOT Act took effect, it has proved remarkably effective in achieving its intended ends. It’s enabled the federal government to obtain 23 convictions and guilty pleas in terrorist-financing cases while freezing $124 million in terrorist assets. It helped authorities identify conspirators in the murder of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl. It’s resulted in the capture of more than 20 suspected al-Qaeda members, netted 100 convictions and guilty pleas for terrorist-related crimes, and led to the deportation of 515 suspicious illegal immigrants. Meanwhile, no court has ruled a single portion of the legislation unconstitutional, nor have the Act’s opponents at NOW or anywhere else identified one bona fide dissident punished or harassed under the act merely for holding unpopular or anti-Administration views. Far from it. The one “dissident” the Left rushed to defend—University of South Florida professor Sami al-Arian—now awaits trial for 50 counts of terrorism, including senior membership in Palestinian Islamic Jihad, which actively sponsors homicide bombings and other forms of mass murder. The Patriot Act also led to the apprehension of Pakistani brothers and illegal immigrants Arsalan and Armaghan Rizvi, whom the Justice Department has identified as possibly complicit in terrorist operations. What’s interesting, or at least should be as far as NOW is concerned, is that the brothers came to authorities’ attention when Arsalan’s wife filed a domestic violence complaint. Thanks to the PATRIOT Act, police were allowed to question him about his national identity, bring in the feds, and dig a little deeper. If the charges against the Rizvis bear out, then Arsalan will prove to be not only a lout who roughs up his wife, but a terrorist, too. Go figure: The sort of people who think nothing of killing innocent women and children tend not to treat the women and children in their own lives much better. One would think NOW would support any law making it easier to put such brutes away. And, to be fair, maybe it does. Consistency has never been one of the organization’s hallmarks. That much was made clear during the Clinton years. Maybe that’s why, under the right circumstances, NOW supports the very PATRIOT Act it denounces. When the Supreme Court ruled, in NOW v. Scheidler, that the federal government could not use RICO anti-racketeering statutes to prosecute abortion protesters, NOW vowed to find some other means. “We are looking at every avenue, including the U.S.A. Patriot Act,” said President Kim Gandy, “in order to protect women, doctors and [abortion] clinic staff from these ideological terrorists” (emphasis added). In other words, NOW is willing to use the PATRIOT Act against its enemies but denies the people of the United States the right to use that same law against the enemies of theit nation. By the same token, the organization is willing to pitch an overblown fit over anti-terrorism legislation just to throw mud at a president it despises. First NOW betrayed women through its love of Clinton, now it’s betraying national security in its hatred of Bush. Such dissent doesn’t need stifling; it discredits itself.

To: American Spirit who wrote (425509)	7/11/2003 12:25:13 AM
From: calgal	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769667

Powell: Bad Intelligence Story 'Overwrought, Overblown, Overdrawn' URL:http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,91590,00.html Thursday, July 10, 2003 WASHINGTON — Secretary of State Colin Powell said Thursday that plenty of information justified war with Iraq, even if some of the intelligence used to win support for the cause turned out to be false. "I think this is very overwrought, overblown and overdrawn," Powell said about the recent admission by the White House that President Bush included erroneous information in his State of the Union address this past winter. Bush cited an intelligence report that Iraq had tried to buy raw uranium from the African nation of Niger (search). The information turned out to be based on forged documents. CIA and State Department officials have said they had told the White House their doubts about the report, but were ignored. The false intelligence was excluded from Powell's presentation to the United Nations a week later, a turnabout that Powell chalked up to newer, better vetting of the intelligence. "You get the information and you analyze it. Sometimes it holds up, and sometimes it doesn't. It's a moving train," Powell told reporters in Pretoria, South Africa (search), adding that there was "no effort or attempt on the part of the president or anyone else in this administration to mislead or to deceive the American people." Powell, discussing a wide range of issues as he traveled with the president in Africa, said that at the time of the State of the Union speech, the intelligence community had vetted the information. "The sentence in the State of the Union was not put in there without the knowledge and the approval of the intelligence community that saw the speech, but I can't tell you what level saw it," Powell said, adding that plenty of additional information justified the war, including data that had existed prior to the president's administration. Democrats criticized the White House this week as U.S. soldiers continued to die in Iraq and the White House admitted the use of the phony intelligence. A growing number of Democrats have asked Bush to seek international assistance for the Iraq occupation, and have begun to classify the attacks on U.S. troops in Iraq as part of a "guerrilla war." Rep. Ike Skelton, D-Mo., the senior Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee, said Thursday that the Defense Department did not prepare adequately for post-combat operations, adding that he feared "we may find ourselves in the throes of guerrilla warfare for years." In a separate press conference, Rep. Eliot Engel, D-N.Y., suggested that Bush seek help in Iraq from NATO. "It makes no sense at all for us to get involved and bogged down in a guerrilla war," he said. Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry, a Democratic presidential candidate, also said the president should ask the international community to help U.S. troops. Powell avoided the third-country issue but said there was plenty of evidence that Saddam Hussein's regime pursued development of weapons of mass destruction. At the end of the 1991 Persian Gulf War, weapons were found and destroyed, Powell noted, adding that in 1998, then-President Clinton ordered a four-day bombing raid because of intelligence about a resuscitated weapons program. The secretary of state also pointed out that all 15 members of the U.N. Security Council in Oct. 2002 found Iraq to be in "material breach" of its commitment to get rid of unauthorized weapons. "If there is anybody who thinks that Saddam Hussein had ever lost the intent to have such weapons," Powell said, "then I think that is the most naive view imaginable." Powell said Bush would soon decide whether to send U.S. peacekeepers into Liberia (search). Liberian President Charles Taylor, accused of war crimes and offered asylum in Nigeria (search), has said he would leave the country when a peacekeeping force arrived. In the meantime, U.S. military experts continued to assess the ground situation in Monrovia, Liberia's besieged capital. Another U.S. team planned to meet with West African diplomats this weekend in Ghana (search). The 15-nation Economic Community of West African States has offered 3,000 troops for a peacekeeping force. "The president hasn't made any specific decisions on the level of support or actual participation," Powell said. "I expect that over the next several days ... the president will be in a position to make a decision." He added that U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, himself a Ghanaian, will be in Washington on Monday to meet Bush. Iraq and Liberia likely will both be on the agenda. Powell said that the president's trip to Africa, originally scheduled for January, had been long on substance, short on style. "We have put before the people of Africa a solid agenda that talks about aid and trade, talks about investment, talks about the greatest threat to Africa right now and, frankly, to many parts of the world, that's HIV/AIDS, talking about expanded opportunities for investment," he said. The president was scheduled to visit Uganda (search) and Nigeria before wrapping up his African excursion. Powell said nothing about the trip was designed to win over African-Americans in the next election, but he hoped that American voters would take a look at the president's foreign policy agenda and "recognize that, admire it, appreciate it and respond accordingly."