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: Jim Willie CB who wrote (29359)	10/2/2003 9:07:08 AM
From: Chas.	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 89467

most of what you say is true.... what do you think could turn it around for us in the great unwashed masses....??? surely one of your intelligence would have a few ideas for a solution to our National dilemma..... regards

To: Jim Willie CB who wrote (29359)	10/2/2003 10:12:41 AM
From: Suma	Respond to of 89467

Jim Willie CB... What a succinct but meaningful and oh so true summary of our country. Example; I lost my first one hundred thousand to a con man who was in Real Estate. He sold my condo and fled with my $ 123.000 Never could retrieve the funds. The second scam.....but this one ended up in jail. A financial advisor put me in an investment in Antiqua.. All phony. At least this one is in jail. The third eight hundred thousand loss.......Asset Protection Trust with all funds in Government securities..and Standard and Poors A + rating. This one belly up with the heads waltzing off with the funds.. No resolution to date. A drug dealer down the road who made Meth in a lab...got life sentence... Are there inequities.. I should think so. Loved what you said.....Would want a copy. Suma

To: Jim Willie CB who wrote (29359)	10/2/2003 10:48:45 AM
From: T L Comiskey	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 89467

cross-currents.net

To: Jim Willie CB who wrote (29359)	10/2/2003 7:05:15 PM
From: RealMuLan	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 89467

>>steal a car, go to jail<< Jim, in CA, some poor people got life sentence for stealing a golf tee just because he had another small demeanor conviction before.

To: Jim Willie CB who wrote (29359)	10/3/2003 11:08:50 PM
From: coug	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 89467

Jim Willie, I have thought a lot about your post to me.. And how I should respond.. I still don't know.. Since I don't want to attack you.. I have a "clue" about so many more things than a lot of people can only imagine, INCLUDING you. Just kidding.. :) For example: I see you support Ahnold.. One of the biggest perps for violence in this country, (by putting on screen to all young people that a AK-47 is the ONLY answer to all disputes)..And to take it further is HIS view toward women.. And he ONLY appologized in a generic fashion after being called on it.. And what about your support of Reagan,, and ALL his MISADVENTURES, (to say the least or put it diplomatically <G>)... Is all of the above good?, which YOU seem to support... AS we descend into this morass you talk about? JUST What are your views of morality?.. If it is, it TELLS me something.. Just wondering.... c AND EDIT and P.S. ..What about the Nazi issue with him?? Still wondering...

To: Jim Willie CB who wrote (29359)	10/3/2003 11:38:36 PM
From: stockman_scott	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 89467

Clark Says 'Rush to War' Based on Twisted Facts ________________________________ By KATHARINE Q. SEELYE The New York Times Published: October 4, 2003 nytimes.com ARLINGTON, Va., Oct. 3 — Gen. Wesley K. Clark delivered a searing indictment of the Bush administration on Friday, asserting that its "headlong rush to war" was based on twisted facts and had violated the nation's democratic principles "with dire consequences for our security." General Clark said the administration was governing "against the will of the majority" by being secretive, demonizing critics and retaliating harshly "against anyone who expresses dissent, questions their facts or challenges their logic." The general, a former supreme Allied commander in Europe for NATO and the most recent entrant into the Democratic presidential race, called for an investigation of the intelligence that led the country into the Iraq war. "We need an independent, comprehensive investigation into the administration's handling of the intelligence leading to war in Iraq," he said. "Nothing could be a more serious violation of public trust than to consciously make a case for war based on false claims." "We need to know if we were intentionally deceived," he said. And as the other Democratic presidential candidates have done, he called for an independent commission to investigate accusations that the White House released the name of a covert operative whose husband had challenged President Bush's assertions that Iraq posed a threat. The Justice Department is investigating the assertions. "Why would White House officials have had that name?" General Clark, 58, asked. His speech, delivered here to a group of military reporters, was his clearest enunciation yet of his rationale for running: that as the commander of NATO forces who pulled together the 19-member alliance to win its first and only war, in Kosovo in 1999, he was a sophisticated and experienced player on the international stage. The speech also underscored his other rationale, that as a four-star general, he had the credentials and credibility to challenge President Bush not only on the war in Iraq but also on the United States' role in the world at a time when national security is a heightened priority. General Clark's campaign aides suggest that he is running for president because he is "the right man at the right time." The general said as much in his speech on Friday as he described the confluence of a disturbing series of events, including the failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, reports that C.I.A. analysts felt pressured to make their intelligence assessments of Iraq conform with the administration's policy objectives, and a report by the House intelligence committee that there was insufficient evidence to go to war. Moreover, he said, the administration had fractured its relationship with its allies. This was not an accident, General Clark said, but "a direct consequence of the willful decisions of the administration to turn its back on 60 years of national security success that came directly from strong alliances." General Clark, who retired from the Army three years ago, said that since leaving the service he had been briefed by Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and seen some of the intelligence that led the administration to declare war in Iraq. In neither case, he said, had he heard or seen anything that should have compelled the nation to war. He said he had heard "behind the scenes" justifications for the war, among them that it would be a good way to reshape the Middle East. "I'm retired," General Clark said. "I'm not in that chain of command. That's why I'm speaking out. That's why I'm answering the call."