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: bentway who wrote (512230)	12/18/2003 10:21:32 AM
From: PROLIFE	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

IT KEEPS GETTING RIDICULOUSER AND RIDICULOUSER I'm talking about the absurd lengths that opponents of the liberation of Iraq will go to find fault with George Bush and the actions of our military. Over the past few weeks the lunatic left has made a fool out of its collective self by suggesting dark motives connected with two events ... both involving turkeys. Turkey Event No. 1. George Bush visits the troops in Baghdad. While there he picks up a platter containing a turkey and the trimmings. When the anti-Bush elements in the media found out that the turkey that Bush was holding wasn't the exact same turkey that was going to be fed to the troops they went ballistic. Can you believe that Time magazine actually wrote that Bush's showing of the display turkey actually raised new questions about his credibility? No, I'm not kidding. The editors and writers at Time actually decided that the very act of Bush picking up that platter with that turkey on it was nothing more than further evidence of his dishonesty. How pathetically desperate do you have to be to adopt such a childish and nonsensical position? Turkey Event No. 2. This would be the release of video tapes of Saddam Hussein after his capture by American forces in Iraq. The Vatican, for one, is protesting the release of this video, as are various Democrat supporters in the United States coupled with anti-American elements in Europe. We are supposed to believe that the release of this video was a gross human rights violation. What are the motives of the people who are upset with the release of these pictures? Look at it this way. We knew that many Iraqis were reluctant to show any support for the new Iraqi government or for the liberation of their country so long as they felt that there was a possibility that Saddam Hussein would return to power. It was necessary for the safety of our troops and the stabilization of the situation in Iraq that the Iraqi people knew for a certainty that Saddam was in captivity and no longer posed a threat to them. The only way to do this was to show his dead body (not such a bad idea) or to show video of him. The release of those videos saved lives .. Iraqi lives and American lives. More bluntly ... the release of the videos, the proof that Saddam has been captured, bolsters the American position in Iraq. This is not what the left wants to see. Since the left is damaged by Bush's increased popularity, and since Bush's increased popularity ratings are a direct result of the capture of Saddam Hussein, it only makes sense that the left would attack any effort to document that capture ... including showing Saddam's picture. JUST HOW AMERICAN IS HOWARD DEAN Yeah, I know. It's really not nice to question the Americanism of Democrats and other left-wingers. Howard Dean, though, has been making some statements that I believe make questioning his loyalty to the country of his birth a fair exercise. Dean said quite a few absurd things during his foreign policy speech earlier this week. He said, for instance, that America was no safer because of the capture of Saddam Hussein. Here we have a man who killed hundreds of thousands of his own people ... some with chemical weapons; a man who was attempting to develop nuclear weapons; a man who admitted to the possession of huge stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons; a man who wrote checks to the families of terrorist suicide bombers and a man who we are now discovering had ties to Osama bin Laden and his Al Qaeda operation ... and Dean says we are no safer because this man has been captured? There was something else buried in Dean's foreign policy speech that needs addressing. Dean was trying to show that he wasn't really weak on security, that he wouldn't really be all that much of a wimp in the Oval Office. He said that "Had the United Nations given us permission and asked us to be a part of a multilateral force I would not have hesitated to go into Iraq." Well, isn't that special. Dean would have gone into Iraq --- but only if the United Nations gave him permission. With this statement Dean has informed America that actions he would take to defend the territory and the people of the United States would be subject to the approval of the United Nations. In other words, actions taken by a President Dean to protect the people of the United States would be subject to a French veto. Sorry, folks ... but this is not part of my definition of a loyal American. MADELINE ALBRIGHT .. IN THE SACK WITH JIM MCDERMOTT? You will remember that Washington Democrat Jim McDermott made a charge last Sunday that the capture of Saddam Hussein was timed to give the best political advantage to George Bush. McDermott said that Bush and the American military knew where Saddam was all along, and that they took him in last weekend because the political time was right. Enter, now, Clinton Secretary of State Madeline Albright. Prior to an appearance on Fox News earlier this week Albright was chatting in the green room with several people, one of which was Mort Kondracke, the editor of Roll Call. While discussing Saddam's capture Albright said "Do you suppose that the Bush administration has Osama bin Laden hidden away somewhere and will bring him out before the election?" Well ... the heat was on almost immediately, and now Albright is taking the "I was just kidding" refuge. Just kidding my posterior. Kondracke says that she wasn't smiling when she made the statement. Neither was Jim McDermott. Neither, by the way, was Howard Dean when he put forth the theory that the Saudis had warned Bush prior to 9/11, and that Bush did nothing. Does Albright really believe that we already have bin Laden? Perhaps not. But here's another theory behind her remarks. If and when we do actually capture Osama bin Laden Albright's comments would be brought back by Democrats in a "we told you so" format renew the suggestion that the "capture" was politically timed. Just hold on .... we'll check back on this when that day arrives. boortz.com

To: bentway who wrote (512230)	12/18/2003 11:01:22 AM
From: Johannes Pilch	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

If Greenspan had effectively and consistently warned investors of the irrationality of stock prices in the late 1990s, the bubble never would have reached such dangerous proportions. His "irrational exuberance" comment just wasn't enough. My my. Leftists always seek to blame someone else for what they do to themselves. Everyone with even just a friggin' brainstem knew the deal here. Greenspan even warned folks. But they didn't listen. They got exactly what they deserved and it ain't Greenspan's fault. The thing works like this: don't use your noggin, get noggin chopped off.