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: T L Comiskey who wrote (23024)	7/23/2003 10:03:31 AM
From: jlallen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 89467

Clinton: White House Uranium Flap Understandable Tuesday, July 22, 2003 WASHINGTON — President Bush's erroneous reference to an Iraqi-Africa uranium (search) link was understandable, former President Clinton (search) said Tuesday, in part because Saddam Hussein's regime had not accounted for some weapons by the time Clinton ended his term in 2001. Clinton's comments reinforce one of the pillars of Bush's defense of the war in Iraq -- that his Democratic predecessor was never satisfied that Saddam had rid himself of weapons of mass destruction. "When I left office, there was a substantial amount of biological and chemical material unaccounted for," Clinton said during a televised interview. Clinton said he never found out whether a U.S.-British bombing campaign he ordered in 1998 ended Saddam's capability of producing chemical and biological weapons. "We might have gotten it all, we might have gotten half of it, we might have gotten none of it," he said. In his State of the Union (search) speech in February justifying the planned war in Iraq, Bush referred to British intelligence reports that Saddam had tried to purchase uranium for nuclear weapons production. His administration says it now believes those reports were based in part on forged documents. Clinton confined his remarks to biological and chemical weapons, and did not say whether he would consider credible any report that Saddam had wanted to build a nuclear weapons program. Nonetheless, he suggested that Bush's mistake was par for the course -- and that it was time to move on now that Bush had acknowledged the error. "You know, everybody makes mistakes when they are president," he said. "I mean, you can't make as many calls as you have to without messing up once in a while. The thing we ought to be focused on is what is the right thing to do now." Clinton said ending tensions in Iraq should be the priority now -- another echo of the current White House's talking points. "We should be pulling for America on this. We should be pulling for the people of Iraq." Clinton made his remarks as a call-in guest on a program observing the 80th birthday of Bob Dole, his rival for the White House in 1996. foxnews.com

To: T L Comiskey who wrote (23024)	7/23/2003 10:17:51 AM
From: Wowzer	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 89467

Listening closely to Merle Haggard chicagotribune.com Carol Marin. Carol Marin is a Chicago journalist and former CBS correspondent Published July 23, 2003 Merle Haggard has a new song out and I think the folks in Washington need to listen to it closely. In the event you haven't paid much attention to country music or its stars, Merle Haggard is a prolific singer/songwriter who has written some truly great material over his 30 years in the music business. He has a strong sense of what people are thinking and feeling, especially working men and women who identify themselves as conservative and patriotic. Back in 1969, he wrote the song with which he will always be synonymous. "Oakie from Muskogie" was Haggard's way of denouncing the growing liberalism and anti-war protests of the '60s. The lyrics affirm small-town values and attack what Haggard sees as long-haired, dope-smoking, war-protesting, draft-dodging, good-for-nothing opponents of the war in Vietnam. It was a hit. And he followed it the next year with "The Fightin' Side of Me," an America-love-it-or-leave-it classic that still brings conservative audiences to their feet. Though I haven't often agreed with his politics, I have always admired Haggard's ability to say what he thinks in songs that resonate with a significant part of the population. Which takes me to his new song. "That's the News" is about the war in Iraq. In it, Haggard asks where are we really going in this post-invasion period in Iraq as U.S. soldiers are dying daily. Haggard told reporter Robert Hilburn in Friday's Chicago Tribune that although Haggard is proud of the men and women doing the fighting in Iraq, he has some serious questions about America's approach to the war and specifically if there is any "long-term plan at all or are we just running our own wars as we go?" Bravo. At a cost of at least $1 billion a week to run this war, it's a reasonable question to ask. That's $10 billion since President Bush declared that the major fighting was over in Iraq. Much more if you add reconstruction costs. But it's not only the government that Haggard is worried about. As the title of the song suggests, he's got some issues with the news and the people delivering it. In that same Tribune article, Haggard wonders why so much was done, especially on television, about the Laci Peterson murder in California while U.S. forces were still sweating it out in Iraq. Give the man a standing ovation. It turns out it's not just the Defense Department that is unprepared for what has been happening since Baghdad fell. This month's Columbia Journalism Review cites a study that seems to echo Haggard's concern. The study, conducted by media analyst Andrew Tyndall, looked at 574 stories about Iraq that aired on the evening newscasts of ABC, CBS and NBC. All of the stories were broadcast between Sept. 12, 2002, when President Bush spoke to the UN, and March 7, 2003, a week and a half before the war began. Out of 574 stories, Tyndall says, only 12 significantly dealt with what would happen in Iraq once the principal fighting stopped. As we now know, war may be hell but right now "peace" is the problem. And so is credibility. The Bush administration's and the media's. That same Columbia Journalism Review issue reports that "in his [President Bush] March 6 [2003] press conference, in which he laid out his reasons for the coming war, President Bush mentioned Al Qaeda or the attacks of Sept. 11 14 times in 52 minutes. No one challenged him on it, despite the fact that the CIA had questioned the Iraq-Al Qaeda connection, and that there has never been solid evidence marshaled to support the idea that Iraq was involved in the attacks of Sept. 11." In the months leading up to the attack on Iraq, a timid press combined with a tight-lipped White House conspired against a conclusive case for war based on provable links between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden, credible evidence of Iraq's nuclear development program or a compelling case that chemical and biological weapons were ready to be put in play. Americans are conflicted. This month a Pew Research Center survey showed 70 percent of people polled (a total of 1,200 people) wanted the news media to be "neutral," but they also wanted to be sure the deliverer of their news shared their same patriotic values. It seems to me searching for and telling the truth is the ultimate form of patriotism even at the risk of losing popularity. It's a risk Merle Haggard is taking. Unlike the news media, his patriotism has never been questioned and now he has questions too. In one of the stanzas of Haggard's song, "That's the news," he writes: No one is a winner And everyone must lose Suddenly the war is over That's the news If I may be so bold to offer a new verse: Americans will listen If you give them the chance to choose The war's not over That's the news. ---------- E-mail: MarinCorpProductions@yahoo.com