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: JakeStraw who wrote (431813)	7/23/2003 11:12:33 AM
From: calgal	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769670

The scandal that never happened By Mona Charen For months, liberal Democrats have been fumbling and stumbling — attempting to get out from under a huge boulder labeled "soft on defense." Now, they think they've found the key: Transform the nearly flawless liberation of Iraq into a scandal. "He's going down," sang Democratic National Committee chairman Terry McAuliffe in reference to the now-famed "Niger" sentence in the president's State of the Union address. Sen. Bob Graham, Florida Democrat, has called for impeachment hearings. Someone needs to get these fellows some Valium. This must surely be the thinnest excuse for scandal-mongering since Nancy Reagan bought new china for the White House (with private funds). What is the president's supposed gaffe? Out of a total of 1,080 words in the speech dealing with Iraq, here are the offending ones: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." It seems the CIA cannot independently confirm this information because the fellow they sent to check it out, Joseph C. Wilson IV, sat "drinking sweet mint tea" with several people in Niger but found no evidence. Mr. Wilson may not have tried very hard. As Clifford May documents in National Review Online, Mr. Wilson was a vociferous opponent of the war in Iraq, a contributor to the left-wing magazine the Nation and keynote speaker for the Education for Peace in Iraq Center, a group that opposed not only the war against Saddam but sanctions and the no-fly zones, as well. OK, but we now know that the report about Iraq seeking uranium from Niger was false, and that makes it a scandal it appeared in the State of the Union, right? Wrong. The British continue to stand by their intelligence. So what is all this fulminating about "what did the president know and when did he know it?" Even if this one piece of evidence, a tiny thread on a huge quilt, turns out to have been inaccurate, so what? There was a mountain of other evidence. This is reminiscent of the jury in the O.J. Simpson case ignoring notebooks full of incriminating evidence because a leather glove failed to slide smoothly onto O.J.'s hand. Where is their sense of proportion? Oil-rich Iraq was building a nuclear reactor in 1981 when Israel interrupted the effort. After the Gulf war, coalition forces learned Iraq was much further along in its nuclear program than had been believed before the war. In the 1990s, the International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons program and was working on five different ways to enrich uranium. Iraq became suddenly friendly with Niger a few years ago. Niger has little to sell, except uranium. Iraq blocked U-2 surveillance flights, coached its scientists on what to say to inspectors and threatened those who might be inclined to tell the truth with death for themselves and their families. Looking at the evidence as a whole, the Niger story is more likely true than false. The only issue seems to be the CIA cannot absolutely prove it to be true. But even the Democrats who opposed the war never questioned that Saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction (WMD). In fact, some used their existence as an argument against going forward, urging that a WMD attack against our troops was virtually inevitable. The truth is that the Democrats, particularly those who would like the nomination for president in 2004, are desperate to discredit the Iraq war and the Bush presidency. At every stage, they have predicted disaster. The Arab street would erupt, thousands of Americans would be killed, Israel would be pulled into the conflict, civilian casualties would be horrendous, oil wells would burn for decades, block-by-block fighting in Baghdad would demoralize our troops and so on. While the war was in progress (a lightning war that liberated a nation the size of California in three weeks), the liberal press carped daily that things had gone badly off track. Mr. Rumsfeld hadn't sent enough soldiers. The troops were stretched too far from their supply lines. We would underestimated the Iraqi will to fight. We were in a quagmire. When it was over and, just as the administration had predicted, the Iraqi people blew horns, threw flowers and danced in the streets, the liberals discovered the Iraqi museum, and wept for the 170,000 looted artifacts. That turned out to be a lie. Now they've found the Niger business. They cannot forgive President Bush for his success. Mona Charen is a nationally syndicated columnist.

To: JakeStraw who wrote (431813)	7/23/2003 11:15:15 AM
From: calgal	Respond to of 769670

Thank you, Tony Blair By Cal Thomas Tony Blair's address to Congress last Thursday was the first by a British prime minister since Margaret Thatcher in 1985, and only the fourth such address in our history. Maybe they should drop in more often to remind us of what many appear to have forgotten. Sounding like a motivational speaker, blending wit and wisdom, Mr. Blair told Congress he had come with an "urgent sense of mission," and he summed up what America, Britain and the Free World face: "September 11 was not an isolated event, but a tragic prologue, Iraq another act, and many further struggles will be set upon this stage before it's over." Precisely. While some members of Congress and the media fiddle with asterisks in questionable reports about Saddam Hussein trying to buy uranium from Niger, a funeral pyre is being planned for the West. Who doubts the terrorists' sense of mission? In his own version of Mrs. Thatcher's famous advice to President George H.W. Bush not to "go wobbly" in the Gulf war, Mr. Blair said, "There never has been a time when the power of America was so necessary or so misunderstood, or when, except in the most general sense, a study of history provides so little instruction for our present day." Why does it take an outsider to remind us of the real issues? It isn't about the next election. It is about the survival of the United States and our way of life, because what we now face is far more dangerous and lethal than communism ever was. The theological dictators of the world who think they do their angry god a favor by killing "infidels" are serious. Too many think the terrorists don't really mean it and can be placated by tossing them Israel, hoping they won't demand more. They will settle for nothing less than our head on a platter. In a speech that should be a must-read for Americans young and old, Mr. Blair said the battle we are fighting cannot be won only by armies: "In the end, it is not power alone that will defeat this evil. Our ultimate weapon is not our guns, but our beliefs." Mr. Blair noted that freedom's adversaries seek to create chaos and disorder, which can be just as effective as large armies. Disorder weakens resolve and creates doubt. It causes leaders to cut and run when opinion polls reflect public intolerance of more blood and body bags. This is what Saddam Hussein is counting on. Call it a postwar antiwar strategy. Mr. Blair correctly linked terrorists and terrorist states: "The risk is that terrorism and states developing weapons of mass destruction come together. And when people say, 'That is fanciful,' I say we know the Taliban supported al Qaeda. We know Iraq under Saddam gave haven to and supported terrorists. We know there are states in the Middle East now actively funding and helping people who regard it as God's will in the act of suicide to take as many innocent lives with them on their way to God's judgment." If ever there was a time when people could play politics over world events, this is not it. While President Bush's critics say he lied about the reason for toppling Saddam, the dictator plots his return to power and thugs who make up the "axis of evil" watch to see if we will quit and, thus, clear the way for them to do more evil. Saddam must be found and tried for crimes against humanity. Iraq must be rebuilt into a thriving democracy. To settle for less will invite more terrorism and more states seeking weapons to massively destroy, or at least blackmail, the United States and Britain. Mr. Blair's conclusion sounded like an old-fashioned Fourth of July peroration: "Tell the world why you're proud of America. Tell them when 'The Star Spangled Banner' starts, Americans get to their feet. ... Tell them why Americans, one and all, stand upright and respectful. Not because some state official told them to, but because whatever race, color, class or creed they are, being American means being free. That's why they're proud." It would be nice if more Americans — especially those engaged in political one-upmanship — felt and spoke this way. Cal Thomas is a nationally syndicated columnist. URL:http://www.washingtontimes.com/commentary/20030722-093714-8843r.htm

To: JakeStraw who wrote (431813)	7/23/2003 12:33:09 PM
From: American Spirit	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 769670

Kerry was for war with the UN, smart post-war plan, more diplomacy and more preparation. That was clearly the right way. You're right though, he CAN be both a hawk and and dove on Iraq, but he is more precisely a careful, thoughtful, coalition-oriented honest hawk, as opposed to a deceitful, rushed, unilateral hawk. His stand has never changed, but he gets criticism from both the right and left because they're jealous he was so right on the money. Dean was wrong to totally oppose taking out Saddam. Bushies were wrong for wanting to rush in alone with no post-war preparations. Wouldn't you rather have a president who is right?