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: Mannie who wrote (22108)	7/13/2003 6:12:06 PM
From: elpolvo	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 89467

scooter- i'd like to hear what clark said. was it on tv? i'm pretty good with google if you can give me some hints i can probably find what he said within a couple of days when it's posted, transcribed or written about. It's a little late, but these guys are about to be questioned, hard. in my job i do a lot of work with elected officials and judges and attorneys. i was talking with (more listening than talking on my part) a judge after a studio show last month. he was saying that the initial reason for an investigation is rarely anything big or earth-shattering. the important thing is that once a formal investigation is begun, then all hell breaks loose because so many people are put under oath and asked so many questions that eventially something incriminating will turn up. he was talking about how ken starr investigated the whitewater affairs, spent millions of bucks finding nothing but eventually turned up an embarrassing sexual liason with an intern that finally ruined the clinton administration when bill tried to protect his privacy and his wife and his daughter by lying about the affair. as i wrote to karen, the uranium lie is a pittance compared to what else has been done by the bush team BUT... and this is a BIG BUT... if it provides the springboard to a formal investigation, all hell will break loose on this gang of fascists. there are hundreds of questions that will be asked... most were already asked by reporters and citizens and were either sidestepped or lied about by the administration. they can't do that under oath without being guilty of perjury or contempt of court. bring it on! you are about to hear the following answer hundreds of times, "i'm not at liberty to divulge that information because it's classified and is a matter of national security." eventually, some of the players will begin to squeal or slip up and impeachable offences will begin to be uncovered. meanwhile, the public will become more educated and the ballot box will speak loudly in 2004. good riddance. -polvo

To: Mannie who wrote (22108)	7/14/2003 6:58:23 AM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 89467

End U.S. Occupation Now ________________________________ by Harry Targ Published on Thursday, July 10, 2003 by USA Today The great folksinger Pete Seeger sang in 1967 of the U.S. sinking deeper and deeper into "the Big Muddy" that was Vietnam, while "the big fool," President Lyndon Johnson, said, "Push on." For those of us who remember Vietnam, Iraq seems more and more like "the Big Muddy," as U.S. troops are targeted for assassination and Iraqis are killed indiscriminately in retaliation. It is not that the circumstances involving the two U.S. military interventions are the same. In the Vietnam case, the U.S. engaged in a long and escalating neocolonial intervention from 1950 until the war was finally lost in 1975. In Iraq, the intervention that began with the Gulf War in 1991 did not involve growing troop commitments until the quick and brutal strikes by land and air against Iraqi targets this past March. What is similar, however, is the colossal ideologically driven miscalculation that the growing guerrilla opposition today is the result primarily of malcontents from the Baath Party, who lost power and wealth with the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, and extremist Iraqis who relish engaging in acts of terrorism against U.S. and British troops. As in Vietnam, the explanation for growing violent opposition to U.S. military occupation is that a tiny and malevolent minority supported by foreign enemies is bent on undermining the "democratization" of Iraq. U.S. leaders just never seem to get it. When the U.S. engages in brutal economic strangulation, sends covert operatives to terrorize populations and launches air and land war on targeted populations, the victims of these actions do not regard the aggressors as liberators. The interests of the Iraqi people and the increasingly vulnerable young men and women of the U.S. military occupation would best be served if the United States negotiates the complete withdrawal of coalition troops and allows them to be replaced with a true international peace force under the aegis of the United Nations. Nothing less will stop the bloodshed. ________________________________________ Harry Targ teaches U.S. foreign policy and international relations at Purdue University. He is the author of 11 books and 50 articles on these subjects. © Copyright 2003 USA TODAY, a division of Gannett Co. Inc. commondreams.org