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.

Pastimes : The Hot Button Questions:- Money, Banks, & the Economy -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: maceng2 who wrote (406)	8/28/2003 6:08:55 PM
From: maceng2	Respond to of 1417

Blair stakes his future on Iraq inquiry outcome By Bob Sherwood and Cathy Newman Published: August 28 2003 21:20 \| Last Updated: August 28 2003 21:20 news.ft.com Tony Blair staked his premiership on the outcome of the Hutton inquiry on Thursday when he insisted that he took "full responsibility" for key decisions leading to the unmasking of David Kelly, the weapons scientist at the centre of a storm over the government’s case for war in Iraq. In an assured courtroom appearance, the prime minister admitted masterminding the announcement that a Ministry of Defence official - later revealed to be Mr Kelly - had come forward as the source for allegations that the government had exaggerated its case in the run-up to war. As he became only the second serving prime minister to give evidence in public to a judicial inquiry, Mr Blair asserted he would have resigned if the allegations levelled by the BBC had been accurate. The Kelly Affair For more news and analysis on the political crisis surrounding the death of David Kelly click here He said: "This was an allegation that we had behaved in a way that were it true...it would have merited my resignation." By implication, he left Lord Hutton in no doubt of the potential repercussions should the inquiry back the BBC over the government. The prime minister's admissions contrasted with the repeated denials of responsibility uttered by Geoff Hoon, his defence secretary, in the witness box the previous day. Mr Blair said: "I take full responsibility for the decisions. I stand by them. I believe they were the right decisions." His evidence left no doubt that the prime minister and his most senior aides were intensely involved in the decisions over how to handle Mr Kelly after he emerged as the source of BBC claims that the government beefed up its controversial dossier on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction in the run-up to war. Mr Blair explained that the government had pursued its battle with the BBC so doggedly because the trust in his administration was at stake. "This was an attack that went not just to the heart of the office of the prime minister but also the way our intelligence services operated. It went, in a sense, to the credibility, I felt, of the country." Yet even if Mr Blair has done enough to convince Lord Hutton that he played both the dossier and the handling of the weapons expert "by the book", opinion polls show the scale of the task still facing him to persuade the rest of the country. More questions over the pressure the government may have exerted over MPs investigating its use of intelligence were revealed yesterday when the inquiry saw an e-mail from Tony Blair's official spokesman setting out reasons why Mr Kelly should be called before MPs. Mr Blair defended the so-called naming strategy, saying he knew the government could not sit on the information that a potential source had come forward because it was crucial to two parliamentary inquiries. Nor could it refuse to name Mr Kelly to journalists for fear that other people could come under suspicion. Yet he could not explain why his official spokesman had given extra hints about Mr Kelly's identity in a briefing to journalists. Just how closely involved the prime minister was in the affair became evident when he revealed he had told Gavyn Davies, BBC chairman, that a potential source had come forward the day before the MoD made its statement.

To: maceng2 who wrote (406)	8/29/2003 4:25:53 AM
From: maceng2	Respond to of 1417

Wind tunnel. Why not a Low Pressure wind tunnel used for transport? There can be acceleration and de-acceleration branch offs at each station. Atmosphere pressure is used for the acceleration stage and a restricted airflow type pocket for the de acceleration stage. Air locks would be used to move carriages from arrivals to departures. Carriages would run on rails of some sort, but contact less during the hi speed run. Air could be used instead of magnetic fields though. Whatever is best economic solution? Current jet engines could be used as the power plants and or turbines driven by nuclear power. (Just pinch some off those new planes sitting out in the desert -g-) You drive up to these things in your SUV, 18-wheeler or whatever. Pay the modest toll, and WHANG New York to Boston in 30 minutes or so (215 miles). maps.yahoo.com Fuel and timesavings all round. Competitive edge for region. Well that and the super conducting DC power lines and all the other stuff mentioned here.. siliconinvestor.com Now.. It’s probably best if I run this whole thing. Raymond could be a candidate too but I think he maybe is a tad too political. I don't think he has the right engineering and management skill set either, and he might upset some of the sub contractors with republican backgrounds and views. There will be A LOT of money changing hands even during the design stage. Construction costs will be high but profitable over the longer run. Probably cheaper then new freeways. It's probably best if an outside consultant (me) is seen to play an impartial role as CEO of the whole operation. Tell your USA politicians I am ready to start when they finally catch up to these ideas. I expect Raymond has already started briefing the Democrats and I would like to see a fair race on this. I could start the same project here though but the politicians are even more screwed then in the USA. 17.5% VAT also puts the dampers on the whole project. No, its best if the USA leads, and let the rest catch up. Same ol same ol... to many changes in the pecking order can lead to all sorts of problems..