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: Raymond Duray who wrote (450620)	8/30/2003 3:58:54 AM
From: sandintoes	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

A new book coming out September 2, and I'm sure YOU won't want to miss it! Losing bin Laden: How Bill Clinton's Failures Unleashed Global Terror Miniter, Richard Order Losing bin Laden now and we will ship it to you as soon as it is released by the publisher on September 2, 2003. Years before the public knew about Osama bin Laden, Bill Clinton did. Bin Laden first attacked Americans during Clinton's presidential transition in December 1992. He struck again at the World Trade Center in February 1993. Over the next eight years the archterrorist's attacks would escalate killing hundreds and wounding thousands -- while Clinton did his best to stymie the FBI and CIA and refused to wage a real war on terror. Why? The answer is here in investigative reporter Richard Miniter's stunning exposé that includes exclusive interviews with both of Clinton's National Security Advisors, Clinton's counter-terrorism czar, his first CIA director, his Secretary of State, his Secretary of Defense, top CIA and FBI agents, lawmakers from both parties and foreign intelligence officials from France, Sudan, Egypt, and the United Arab Emirates, as well as on-the-scene coverage from Sudan, Egypt, and elsewhere. For eight years the archterrorist waged war on America, and President Clinton did virtually nothing . . . Losing bin Laden is a dramatic, page-turning read, a riveting account of a terror war that bin Laden openly declared, but that Clinton left largely unfought. With a pounding narrative, up-close characters and detailed scenes, it takes you inside the Oval Office and the White House Situation Room, and within some of the deadliest terrorist cells that America has ever faced. If Clinton had fought back, the attacks on September 11, 2001, might never have happened. In Losing bin Laden you'll learn: The new evidence that Clinton knew about Sudan's offers to arrest bin Laden -- but ignored them in order to focus on the 1996 presidential election Why Clinton even refused to receive Sudan's vital intelligence files on bin Laden's network How Clinton scuttled a secret offer from the United Arab Emirates to arrest bin Laden -- and also rejected a plea from Yemen for help in capturing the terrorist Revealed for the first time: how Clinton and a Democratic Senator stopped the CIA from hiring Arabic translators -- while phone intercepts from bin Laden remained untranslated Drawn from secret Sudanese intelligence files: bin Laden's role in shooting down America's Black Hawk helicopters in Mogadishu, Somalia -- and how Clinton manipulated the news media to keep the worst off America's TV screens The warning that Clinton missed -- a week before the deadly shoot-out in Somalia How Clinton's top officials first learned about bin Laden -- but did nothing The-never-before told story of the Saudi government attempt to assassinate bin Laden The real reason Clinton refused to meet with his first CIA director The untold story of bin Laden's five declarations of war on the U.S. from October 1996 to May 1998 -- threats Clinton ignored How Clinton ignored intelligence and offers of cooperation against bin Laden from Afghanistan's Northern Alliance The 1993 World Trade Center attack: Why Clinton refused to believe it had been bombed; why the CIA was kept out of the investigation; and how one of the FBI's most trusted informants was actually a double agent working for bin Laden Disproved, once and for all: the liberal myth that the CIA funded bin Laden The untold story of a respected Congressman who repeatedly warned Clinton officials about bin Laden in 1993 -- and why he was ignored How the Predator spy plane -- which spotted bin Laden three times -- was grounded by bureaucratic infighting Plus much more, including appendices of secret documents and photos, as well as the established links between bin Laden and Saddam Hussein's Iraq Richard Miniter appears regularly on Fox News to discuss terrorism, and has written for the Wall Street Journal, New York Times, Atlantic Monthly, National Review, and many other publications. Losing bin Laden is a story -- and one hell of a lesson -- that the reader will never forget.

To: Raymond Duray who wrote (450620)	8/31/2003 4:26:50 AM
From: Lazarus_Long	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 769667

WOW! SI's PREMIER paranoid schizophrenic is calling some else crazy! Hey, I'm STILL waiting for an answer to this: Message 19244077 And you saw it before- -I posted that link to you. Come on, big boy, you've made the claim that the jets couldn't have caused the WTC collapse often enough, now defend it. Put up or shut up. Or are you man enough to admit you are wrong?

To: Raymond Duray who wrote (450620)	8/31/2003 11:51:08 AM
From: average joe	Respond to of 769667

Muslims in Bed with Leftists by Tim Borders Right Turn Forged upon the anvil of political expediency, a tenuous alliance of Muslims and leftists has emerged in recent months that has undermined the credibility of both sides. This past fall, campus leftists and the Muslim Student Association (MSA) united to defeat a resolution in the Student Senate that supported the current war against terrorism, despite a provision that recognized the need to minimize civilian casualties. In recent demonstrations in Seattle, leftists who were protesting the meetings of the World Bank and the IMF joined forces with Muslim protesters who were protesting Israel’s “aggression” against Palestinians suspected of encouraging suicide bombings. The demonstrators promoted the Palestinians’ “right to resist” the occupying Israeli forces with all methods at their disposal, including suicide bombings that kill innocent babies and children, sniper attacks, and other terrorist tactics. Since the events of September 11, Muslim student groups have welcomed leftist professors and leftist student organizations as uneasy allies, and have crafted a careful, left-friendly strategy of voicing their concerns through a policy of demonizing those who disagree with them as “racists” and “intolerant” Islamophobes. Aware that leftists quiver with delight—some strange natural harmonic, perhaps—with the word “racism,” Muslim activists on campus have couched the pressures they feel as Muslims in post-September 11 America with terms familiar to the left, such as “racial oppression” and “racial intolerance.” This tactic makes some sense, as leftists would be fundamentally repulsed by the phrase “religious bigotry” to describe the difficulties and prejudices Muslims might face at the University of Washington. Aware that a dialogue about respecting religious beliefs would necessarily implicate the left in their general intolerance of conservative Christians and Jews, astute Muslims do not express their struggle within a religious framework. Doing so might alienate their newfound bedfellows, since many leftists view religion itself as the culprit responsible for most of the world’s problems. “Religion” is a dirty word in the leftist lexicon; of particular repugnance is the word “Christianity.” For decades, elements of the Left have viewed Christians as their chief foes, since Christianity is the predominant religion in America. Adopting a “divide and conquer” strategy to discourage politically incorrect religious expression in the United States, secularists, moral relativists and preachers of “tolerance” have demonstrated a willingness to forge alliances with all groups that are explicitly anti-Christian, including, ironically, religious groups. The price religious allies pay is that they are pressured into minimizing their religious identity. Thus emasculated, these religious groups are reclassified by the left along more palatable racial or ethnic lines. Under the banner of “tolerance,” many leftists thus expediently categorize Muslims by their outward racial characteristics rather than their inner beliefs, which would be repulsive to them. On another level, leftists view Islamic countries as underprivileged and oppressed by the capitalistic West, and blame American corporations, the American military, and the American government for the widespread troubles in most Islamic nations of the world. Whether burdened by guilt or simply for paternalistic reasons, some leftists feel compelled to take Muslims under their wings and shield them from America itself. These modern-day Rudyard Kiplings are ashamed of their status as Americans, believing that America’s wealth and power is derived from economic imperialism, and that the United States is responsible for keeping the poorer countries of the world in a state of continual dependency. Unable to embrace Muslims in distant lands, leftists seek out Muslims in America and shower them with apologies for America’s alleged misdeeds. Not surprisingly, Muslim activists on campus foster these sentiments, employing leftist buzzwords such as “exploited” and “underprivileged” to describe backward Islamic countries. The authoritarian regimes of Saudi Arabia and other Islamic countries are the direct result of Western imperialism, say Muslims and leftists, and exist solely because they are propped up by American interests abroad. America is thus at fault for the corruption in these governments; if America would stop its economic exploitation of Islamic countries, the people would be free to rise in rebellion and establish socialistic utopias. One problem with this argument is that Muslims have no interest whatsoever in establishing socialistic utopias. They do indeed blame the West for carving up the Middle East along artificial lines, but their vision for the entire Middle East—and the world—is a loose conglomeration of “true” Islamic caliphates. In fact, the unholy alliance of Muslims and leftists is problematic since neither side is fully honest with the other. Muslims are not interested in “tolerance” as the Left understands it, nor are they interested in democratic ideals for the Islamic countries of the world. For their part, leftists are not concerned about the right of Muslims to practice their religion; they merely view Christianity as a greater threat. The transparent tensions in this leftist-Muslim alliance only cause both sides to appear hypocritical. It is not surprising, therefore, that few Americans still take them seriously. students.washington.edu