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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: NickSE who wrote (8419)	9/17/2003 10:59:29 PM
From: Elsewhere	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 793745

Well, if you believe the part you quoted you will also believe this, from the same source -g- : There were no weapons of mass destruction. All the biological, chemical, nuclear, and missile programs, that we had, were destroyed during the 1991 Gulf War.

To: NickSE who wrote (8419)	9/18/2003 1:21:57 AM
From: NickSE	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793745

U.S.: Iraq sheltered suspect in '93 WTC attack usatoday.com WASHINGTON — U.S. authorities in Iraq say they have new evidence that Saddam Hussein's regime gave money and housing to Abdul Rahman Yasin, a suspect in the World Trade Center bombing in 1993, according to U.S. intelligence and law enforcement officials. The Bush administration is using the evidence to strengthen its disputed prewar assertion that Iraq had ties to terrorists, including the al-Qaeda group responsible for the Sept. 11 attack. But President Bush, in contrast with comments Sunday by Vice President Cheney, said Wednesday, "We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved." Cheney had said on NBC's Meet the Press Sunday that "we don't know" if Iraq was involved but said some suggestive evidence had surfaced. He asserted that the campaign in Iraq is striking at terrorists involved in the attacks. Cheney also disclosed the new evidence about the 1993 suspect on the program, but he did not name Yasin. Military, intelligence and law enforcement officials reported finding a large cache of Arabic-language documents in Tikrit, Saddam's political stronghold. A U.S. intelligence official who spoke on condition of anonymity said translators and analysts are busy "separating the gems from the junk." The official said some of the analysts have concluded that the documents show that Saddam's government provided monthly payments and a home for Yasin. Yasin is on the FBI's list of 22 most-wanted terrorist fugitives; there is a $25 million reward for his capture. The bureau questioned and released him in New York shortly after the bombing in 1993. After Yasin had fled to Iraq, the FBI said it found evidence that he helped make the bomb, which killed six people and injured 1,000. Yasin is still at large. Even if the new information holds up — and intelligence and law enforcement officials disagree on its conclusiveness — the links tying Yasin, Saddam and al-Qaeda are tentative. The World Trade Center bombing was carried out by a group headed by Ramzi Yousef, who is serving a 240-year prison term. Federal authorities say Yousef's group received financial support from al-Qaeda via Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the alleged mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks. But a direct al-Qaeda role in the 1993 attack hasn't been established. ~~~~~~~~~ The Baluch Connection opinionjournal.com Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks, is a Pakistani Baluch. So is Ramzi Yousef, who masterminded the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. In 1995, together with a third Baluch, Abdul Hakam Murad, the two collaborated in an unsuccessful plot to bomb 12 U.S. airplanes. Years later, as head of al Qaeda's military committee, Mohammed reportedly planned the 1998 U.S. Embassy bombings, as well as the bombing of the USS Cole in 2000.

To: NickSE who wrote (8419)	9/18/2003 9:01:45 AM
From: LindyBill	Respond to of 793745

Trade & Tarrif Travails - Protectionist pressure is rising. Bruce Bartlett - National Review The collapse of world trade talks over the weekend has produced much hand-wringing in the Bush administration. Yet it was the inevitable result of its own protectionist policies — especially last year's budget-busting agriculture subsidy bill. Since the whole point of the talks was supposed to be about reducing agriculture subsidies, raising such subsidies at the beginning of negotiations was a clear signal that the administration placed domestic politics above free trade. Nevertheless, the collapse of trade talks is significant because protectionist pressure is rising. The only real hope of heading it off was the possibility of an international agreement that would force a reduction in tariffs, subsidies, and other protectionist policies. Now that such an agreement is probably dead, the protectionists are strengthened. China is the main target. Exhibit A is China's allegedly undervalued exchange rate. It is often said that the Chinese yuan would rise by 40 percent if allowed to float freely, rather than being pegged to the dollar. The effect is to make Chinese exports to the U.S. 40 percent cheaper in terms of dollars, and U.S. exports to China 40 percent more expensive in terms of yuan. Before one can analyze this situation, it is important to understand that no one knows what the dollar/yuan exchange rate would be in the absence of pegging. Many currencies that float freely are often thought to be overvalued or undervalued for various reasons. So simply eliminating the peg does not guarantee that the yuan will rise. Indeed, some economists believe that the yuan might fall if China eliminated capital controls — which it would have to do in order to have a free float — and allowed its citizens to invest their savings outside the country. Another thing to keep in mind is that it is just about impossible for a country to undervalue its currency against just one other currency. Currency traders would engage in arbitrage to take advantage of this anomaly to buy and sell other currencies so as to undermine the effort. In other words, the Chinese couldn't keep the yuan undervalued against the dollar without also keeping it undervalued vis-à-vis the yen, the euro, and other currencies. So if the yuan is in fact undervalued against the dollar, then it is also undervalued against all other currencies. But if the yuan is undervalued against all currencies, then it should be running a trade surplus with every country, not just the U.S. In fact, China runs an overall trade deficit. Its surplus with us is more than offset by deficits with other countries. Finally, it is worth remembering that if the yuan is truly undervalued against the dollar, then it is like giving every American a 40 percent discount card on everything made in China. Our real incomes are higher in terms of what they will buy because of the Chinese policy. Instead of complaining, we should all be grateful. Of course, there are those who will point to jobs in the U.S. that have been lost due to competition from Chinese imports. But is this really a sensible rationale for putting tariffs on Chinese goods, as Sen. Charles Schumer (D., N.Y.) proposes? If Wal-Mart suddenly decided to cut the prices on all its goods by 40 percent, would Sen. Schumer endorse a tax on Wal-Mart because Target was losing jobs? I think not, but the analogy is accurate. Even if Sen. Schumer's 27.5 percent tariff is imposed on Chinese goods, it is not necessarily going to restore any American jobs. In all likelihood, companies now importing from China will just buy from the next-cheapest producer, which may be Korea, Singapore, Mexico, or someplace else. They are not going to start manufacturing here the goods that are now being imported from China unless we put high tariffs on imports from everywhere. Putting tariffs on all imports to create jobs would be extremely bad policy for many reasons. The cost would likely be in the hundreds of thousands of dollars per job, all of which will be paid by Americans in the form of higher prices for things they consume. And many U.S. jobs will be lost because of the higher cost of imports, which are often inputs for U.S. manufacturing, and because of foreign retaliation. In the end, such a strategy has always been a lose-lose proposition. Unfortunately, the Bush administration is playing politics, with Commerce Secretary Don Evans bashing China for unfair trade and Treasury Secretary John Snow demanding a rise in the yuan. One cannot rule out the possibility that it will pander to voters in key states by imposing restriction on Chinese imports, as it imposed tariffs on steel last year. It is worth noting that three Republican senators have already co-sponsored the Schumer bill: Jim Bunning of Kentucky, Elizabeth Dole of North Carolina, and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina. nationalreview.com