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: Done, gone. who wrote (507102)	12/10/2003 10:05:26 AM
From: PROLIFE	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

Surprise! Guess Who Originated "Pre-Emption" Policy? By Chuck Muth FrontPageMagazine.com \| December 10, 2003 Anti-war kooks in general, and Democrat presidential candidates in particular, continue to hammer the President for his pre-emption policy of "do it to them before they do it to us." But if you thought Democrats went nuts over comparisons of President Bush's tax cuts to JFK, you ain't seen nothing yet. Wait'll they hear who originated the doctrine of pre-emptive defense. First, let's get everybody on record here. Earlier this year, an online left-wing organization called MoveOn.org hosted a "virtual" Democrat presidential primary in which Howard Dean came out on top. In competing for votes from the MoveOn members, Dean posted a position statement on the organization's website. Included in the statement was this line: "On my first day in office, I will tear up the Bush Doctrine of pre-emptive war." In his online Candidate Interview with the MoveOn folks, Dean elaborated: "I've said all along that the Bush doctrine of preemptive war is wrong for America, and sets a dangerous precedent." But Dean's not the only current Democrat presidential candidate to tell the MoveOn folks that they oppose the pre-emption doctrine. "The Bush Administration's pre-emption doctrine is unnecessary and unwise," declared John Edwards in his interview. "The Administration's provocative new doctrine has been distracting and damaging." Dick Gephardt chimed in, "The U.S. should not have a pre-emptive war doctrine." Sen. John Kerry said "it's counterproductive to make pre-emption a doctrine." Dennis Kucinich stated flatly that "As President, I will repeal the pre-emptive war doctrine." And Al Sharpton declared that "It's a dangerous and traditionally un-American doctrine." This is unarguably the same position held by the vast number of MoveOn members and left-wing Democrat activists. It's not too much of a stretch to suggest this is the official Democrat position for the 2004 campaign. So I wonder how Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the patron saint of liberal Democrats everywhere, would have responded to the question of pre-emptive defense in that interview? Actually, I don't have to wonder. I have it right here. In a Fireside Chat on - and you're not going to believe the coincidence of this date - September 11, 1941, FDR told the nation, "When you see a rattlesnake poised to strike, you do not wait until he has struck before you crush him." Hmmmm. Response, Mr. Dean? Rep. Gephardt? Sen. Edwards? Sen. Kerry? Rep. Kucinich? Rev. Sharpton? At issue at the time was German submarine attacks on American ships, particularly a September 4, 1941, torpedo attack on the American destroyer Greer en route to Iceland. Roosevelt warned that "It is time for all Americans...to stop being deluded by the romantic notion that the Americas can go on living happily and peacefully in a Nazi-dominated world." He described the Greer attack by Hitler as "one determined step toward creating a permanent world system based on force, on terror, and on murder." Roosevelt continued: "Normal practices of diplomacy - note writing - are of no possible use in dealing with international outlaws who sink our ships and kill our citizens." "Let us not ask ourselves whether the Americas should begin to defend themselves after the first attack, or the fifth attack, or the tenth attack, or the twentieth attack," FDR declared. "This is the time for prevention of attack." With that, Roosevelt declared open season on any German or Italian vessels in the water. By the way, discovery of this FDR policy statement isn't something new. But funny how the media never seem to bring it up when questioning the Democrat candidates who criticize the Bush policy, isn't it? At any rate, the doctrine of pre-emption didn't originate in the Bush administration. It was a policy adopted and implemented exactly 50 years, to the day, before the September 11 al Qaeda attacks on U.S. citizens. And it was articulated, not by a 21st century Republican president, but by the Democrat Party's liberal icon who recognized that America's security and defense were of paramount importance - and didn't require the approval of France. They don't make Democrats the way they used to, do they?

To: Done, gone. who wrote (507102)	12/10/2003 10:10:10 AM
From: jlallen	Respond to of 769667

Is America Becoming Fascist? No. What kind of dope thinks so????

To: Done, gone. who wrote (507102)	12/10/2003 10:15:16 AM
From: Done, gone.	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 769667

Target: U.S. Constitution General Tommy Franks worries the Constitution might not survive a WMD attack —By John O. Edwards, Newsmax.com If worst comes to worst, those of us concerned that our civil liberties have been threatened since the knee-jerk passage of the US Patriot Act after Septemeber11, 2001 and the onset of the Iraq war-sequel, might find our usual opponents in officialdom actually agreeing with us. John O. Edwards, writing for the right-leaning website NewsMax.com, cites an interview with Gen. Tommy Franks, published in the December issue of Cigar Aficionado magazine, wherein the General expressed his belief that "if the United States is hit with a weapon of mass destruction ... the Constitution will likely be discarded in favor of a military form of government." Franks, the former commander of the military's Central Command and the man responsible for leading the US military operation to "liberate" Iraq is the first government official to predict that a breakdown of our form of republican government is contingent upon a major terrorist attack against the US or our allies. Although Franks wasn't able to pinpoint when a "casualty-producing" attack may occur, he said that such an event could cause "our population to question our own Constitution and to begin to militarize our country ... which ... then begins to unravel the fabric of our Constitution." The General, a decorated veteran of the George the Elder's war, concluded his interview with a statement that makes the government's official view towards peacekeeping and the future of democracy even more cryptic. "It's not the history of civilization for peace to reign," he said. "I doubt that we'll ever have a time when the world will actually be at peace." -- Eric Larson utne.com

To: Done, gone. who wrote (507102)	12/10/2003 10:55:46 AM
From: bentway	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

It is sad to see America becoming a facist state under this administration. I no longer have to wonder how the average thinking German felt during the thirties, we're all living it. It wasn't "how could they let it happen", it how can we STOP it from happening?

To: Done, gone. who wrote (507102)	12/10/2003 12:36:47 PM
From: Oeconomicus	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

What an incredible load of crap! Adbusters magazine? Well, this story should have been in its latest issue, which was titled "Systematically Distorted Information." Gross distortions abound, as do seemingly powerful, but empty and meaningless catch-phrases. This is the kind of writing that George Orwell wrote about in 1946: "As soon as certain topics are raised, the concrete melts into the abstract and no one seems able to think of turns of speech that are not hackneyed: prose consists less and less of words chosen for the sake of their meaning, and more and more of phrases tacked together like the sections of a prefabricated henhouse." "modern writing at its worst does not consist in picking out words for the sake of their meaning and inventing images in order to make the meaning clearer. It consists in gumming together long strips of words which have already been set in order by someone else, and making the results presentable by sheer humbug." "Political language . . .is designed to . . . give an appearance of solidity to pure wind." George Orwell, "Politics and the English Language", 1946. resort.com; Here are a few samples from your post of "pure wind": "The blinkered assertion that we are immune to the fascist virus ignores degrees of convergence and distinction based on the individual patient’s history." [What the f-word does this mean? Orwell would chuckle and weep at the same time.] "The pace of events in the last two years has been almost as blindingly fast as it was after Hitler’s consolidation of fascist power in 1933. Speed stuns and silences." [This appears to draw a parallel between Hitler's rise and some series of events today, but doesn't. It really says nothing but that "things happen stunningly fast sometimes."] "America today wants to be communal and virile [It does? How so? And which meaning of these words does the author intend?]; it seeks to overcome what many have been convinced are the unreasonable demands of minorities and women (Which "demands"? Which "America"? The minority who are white males?]; it wants to reinvigorate ideals of nation [Patriotism is bad?], region and race [Who is trying to factionalize America? Maybe the author is attacking Dean and Sharpton, now?] in order to take control of the future [we should leave the future to chance?]; it seeks to overcome the social divisiveness of capitalism and democracy [It does? I thought Bush was engaged in class warfare on behalf of rich whites.], remolding the nation through propaganda and leadership ["Propaganda" is what Orwell would term a "meaningless word" (as he did "fascism", BTW). Oh, and now "leadership" is bad, too?]." "In the near future, America can be expected to embark on a more radical search to define who is and who is not a part of the natural order: exclusion, deportation and eventually extermination might again become the order of things. [Hmm. Maybe some evidence to support this? And "America can be expected to embark..." is classic. It "can be expected" to do most anything, but who, if anyone, actually expects this specific thing? Besides the author, that is.] Fascism can occur precisely at that moment of truth when the course of political history can tend to one direction or another [LOL. When history can go in any direction, fascism can happen. Oh s#!t!!!]." "Capitalism today is different [More regulated, perhaps - is the author suggesting that's bad?], so are the means of propaganda [There's that meaningless word again, but yes, the means and speed of communication are greater than in Hitler's time], and so are the technological tools of suppression [Oops, better shut down the internet - massive and instantaneous flows of information are incredibly "suppressive."]. But that is only a matter of variation, not opposition [I'm searching for a meaning here - help me out.]." "But fascism is not conservatism, and it takes issue with conservatism’s anti-revolutionary stance. Conservatism’s libertarian strand – an American staple – would not agree with fascism’s “nationalist authoritarian state.” [So, we have nothing to worry about from Conservatives? OK, now we're coming back to the real world.] Reaganite anti-government rhetoric might have been a precursor to fascism, ["Might have been a precursor"? Except that it wasn't. but it might have been.] but free market and deregulationist ideology cannot be labeled fascist [No, they certainly cannot, so why is the author labeling them so?]." That's enough. I could go on, but I think there's a limit to post lengths on SI. And I think I've made the point - Orwell would not want me to belabor it.