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: Machaon who wrote (507355)	12/10/2003 3:59:47 PM
From: Orcastraiter	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769670

I can't imagine a weaker president than Bush. His weakness lies in his inability to make a proper response to the terrorists. You cite 9-11 as the reason for the war on terror. Sure enough, that was an act of war. And it was perpetrated by bin Laden and Al Qaeda. The proper response was to find him and eliminate him, and to destroy his camps and to destroy the Taliban which supported Al Qaeda, and to do as much harm to the Al Qaeda network as is humanly possible. Somehow we stopped working on this front, and even let bin Laden slip away in the night. We had the full support of the world, the UN and NATO in this action against Al Qaeda. But we stop in the middle of the action, and then divert most resources to Iraq? In Iraq we do not have the support of the world. Iraq is not an Al Qaeda haven. So we decide to take out Saddam. But Saddam did not attack America! This was a pre-emptive invasion of a country, that was not a threat to the US. We're spending billions in Iraq, not only on the war effort, but also on rebuilding the country. Rebuilding is really a misnomer, we're building the country. We're building the oil infrastructure, the roads, the sewers, the water systems and the electrical grid. This is not about the war on terror. It's about nation building. It's about lucrative contracts, which by the way are going to friends of Bush to a large degree. The only way the action in Iraq can be considered a front on the war on terror, is that a handful of terrorists have showed up to support the remnants of Saddam's supporters. We do engage these terrorists, and in that respect it is a war on terror. But it does not do anything to stop Al Qaeda and the sleeper cells and the network of terrorists around the world. Stop for a minute and think of how the terrorists operated on September 11th. Did they attack with an army? A navy? An airforce? No they did not. They attacked with 19 very well groomed and polite middle eastern men. They were just on another business trip to the unsuspecting eye. The next attack will be very much the same I think. It won't be done with an invading army. It will be a cell operating quietly and efficiently. They won't be noticed until it's probably too late. What are we doing to safeguard the homeland against such attacks? I'd say not near enough. We have not secured our ports, our chemical factories, our nuclear facilities or really even our airports. The war on terror won't be won by fighting angry Islamists or Saddam loyalists in Baghdad. It's going to be won by getting after Al Qaeda, and the other organizations that are designed to strike at the weak underbelly of America. Until we start directing resources at terrorists were actually ignoring the central front against terror. Calling Baghdad the central front on terror is just another lie. It's anything but central. It's a side show in the war on terror, and it does nothing to stop terrorism. Nothing! Orca

To: Machaon who wrote (507355)	12/10/2003 4:08:28 PM
From: Orcastraiter	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

If bin Laden is so easy to find, why don't you go find him? I'll pay for your ticket to western Afghanistan, or North Eastern Pakistan. Go up into the mountains carrying a sign saying that you are after bin Laden, and that you are an American, and that you are a Jew. Make sure the word JEW is in big letters. Muslims love Jews, so you would be in absolutely no danger. Since, I'm not a jew, and you are, I think you should go to Pakistan looking for bin Laden. You seem to have the methodology down pat! Imagine you can actually serve you country instead of spreading your big fat ass in front of the computer. I disagree. Bush's quick action in Iraq probably saved ten's of thousands of American lives in America. Why do you think that we can't find KNOWN WMD in Iraq? Well???? The obvious answer is that WMD are not in Iraq anymore and they were headed towards America. The WMD are now being hidden until America takes the pressure off the terrorist groups. If a Democrat gets elected to office, the pressure will be taken off the terrorists, and everyone will unfortunately find out about the WMD. Are you saying the WMD are now on the move towards the US? LOL pal. If that's the case it's another Bush failure. If they have WMD why wait for a democrat to enter office? Use them now against the hated Bush. I think you are wrong. All you have are fantasies and winger theories about Saddam and his WMD. If the WMD have moved then why isn't Bush going after them? Why has he stopped to rebuild the oil fields in Iraq? Shouldn't we be on the trail of the WMD? Orca

To: Machaon who wrote (507355)	12/10/2003 4:14:05 PM
From: Rick McDougall	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

An example of Bush diplomacy: Martin slams U.S. ban on bids for Iraqi contracts; Manley suggests aid halt MARTIN O?HANLON Canadian Press Wednesday, December 10, 2003 Incoming prime minister Paul Martin speaks during a news conference in Toronto on Tuesday. (CP/Tobin Grimshaw) OTTAWA (CP) - Paul Martin says he can't "fathom" an American decision to bar Canadian firms from bidding on reconstruction contracts in Iraq and he will take up the matter with the U.S. ambassador. Martin, who becomes prime minister Friday, said the decision to exclude countries that opposed the American-led invasion of Iraq is flawed. "I understand the importance of these kinds of contracts, but this shouldn't be just about who gets contracts, who gets business," he said Wednesday. "It ought to be what is the best thing for the people of Iraq." Martin said Canada has committed nearly $300 million for reconstruction in Iraq and that Canadian troops in Afghanistan "are carrying a very, very heavy load" in the war on terrorism. "I will certainly be discussing this with the ambassador and then we will see." Deputy Prime Minister John Manley went a step further, suggesting Canada may cut its aid to Iraq. "It would be difficult for us to give further money," Manley said from Paris where he was attending a state banquet in honour of retiring Prime Minister Jean Chretien. "To exclude Canadians just because they are Canadians would be unacceptable if they accept funds from Canadian taxpayers for the reconstruction of Iraq." Other countries also slammed the snub. Germany called it "unacceptable," France questioned its legality, and Russia issued an implicit threat that it might take a harder line on restructuring Iraqi debt as Washington has been seeking. The directive from U.S. deputy defence secretary Paul Wolfowitz limits bidders for 26 lucrative contracts worth $18.6 billion US to firms from the United States, Iraq, their coalition partners and other countries that have sent troops to Iraq. Countries that did not sent troops would be eligible for subcontracting work in Iraq. The order says restricting contract bids "is necessary for the protection of the essential security interests of the United States." White House spokesman Scott McClellan dismissed criticism, saying the policy is "appropriate and reasonable." "Prime contracts for reconstruction funded by U.S. taxpayer dollars should go to the Iraqi people and those countries who are working with the United States on the difficult task of helping to build a free, democratic and prosperous Iraq." He said countries that want to be eligible for a slice of the $18.6 billion can do so by participating militarily. They can also vie for contracts being financed by a separate international fund that the White House estimates will be worth $13 billion US, he said. Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov said the U.S. decision contradicts promises by U.S. President George W. Bush. "I believe that this is in the common interest, and all who are prepared to participate in it should be given every possibility to do so," he said.

To: Machaon who wrote (507355)	12/10/2003 5:51:21 PM
From: Rick McDougall	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

How to win friends & influence people:o) WASHINGTON (AP) - The Bush administration has reopened an emotional rift with Europe, just as its damaged relations with Germany, France and Russia seemed on the mend. All sides had been working to move past their divisive pre-war dispute over Iraq, cooperating on issues including trade to revive mutually beneficial relationships. But with the American decision to block some of its allies from lucrative Iraqi contracts, it's back to sharp words and threats of retaliation. Also complicating the trans-Atlantic relationship is a pending decision to relocate U.S. military bases throughout Europe. Germany, among others, is bound to be upset if the administration decides to cut U.S. forces in Germany, sending some to eastern Europe and others home. The Europeans did not attempt to muffle their outcry Wednesday when the Pentagon - backed by the White House - said only countries that supported the U.S. war in Iraq could share in the contracts being awarded for the American portion of the postwar reconstruction there. The decision could not have taken the European capitals by surprise. Several times this year, Secretary of State Colin Powell cautioned that countries that did not assist in Iraq's liberation from Saddam Hussein could not expect to be rewarded. Still, "unacceptable" was part of Germany's livid, official reaction. Germany, playing a leading role in the reconstruction of Afghanistan, has not sent troops to Iraq. It has, however, offered to help train Iraqi police in the United Arab Emirates. That project may go ahead, nonetheless, and Germany is unlikely to oppose moves to ease Iraq's debt burden, estimated at $100 billion to $120 billion. But Russia, which is owed $8 billion by Iraq - even more than Iraq owes France, the United States and Germany - is threatening to retaliate for being excluded. "As far as the Russian government's position on this, it is not planning any kind of a write-off of that debt," Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov said Wednesday. All this will complicate the task of former Secretary of State James A. Baker III, who was named last week by President Bush to oversee efforts to scale down Iraq's debt. Having gone ahead with the Iraq war over European objections, the United States in recent months had worked to elicit Europe's support in the United Nations with a Security Council resolution to give the body a larger role in Iraq - as U.S. critics had wanted. Also, Bush had moved this fall to repair a relationship with Germany's chancellor. And the United States had backed down on a trans-Atlantic trade flap over steel tariffs. Much of that goodwill now seems again gone. In the meantime, and likely to make the situation worse, two senior administration officials are touring European capitals with word that several U.S. bases may be shifted. Poland and Bulgaria are being eyed, with Germany apt to lose the presence of some U.S. Army installations and the income that comes with it. Undersecretary of State Marc Grossman offered assurances to the Kremlin on Wednesday that Russia faced no threat if U.S. bases were relocated in the New Europe. But Ivanov expressed concern, nonetheless. "Any plans to bring the NATO infrastructure closer to our borders prompts an absolutely understandable, explicable concern," he said. Trying to soften the blow of the contracts decision, State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said the restrictions applied only to primary contractors. "There are very few restrictions on subcontractors," he said, and lots of opportunities. And, Boucher noted, managers of the World Bank and International Monetary Fund trust funds, through which billions of dollars in non-U.S. assistance will be channeled to Iraq, "may have different, or their own rules for how they contract." Still, the criticism mounted. Zbigniew Brzezinski, the national security adviser to former President Carter, called "bizarre" the Bush administration's decision to make the announcement so publicly. "There are perfectly good reasons to discriminate between those who are very helpful and those who are less helpful," Brzezinski said in an interview. "But why rub it in with a political announcement that will further diminish the probability of serious European participation?"