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: Rick Faurot who wrote (33935)	12/31/2003 10:08:58 AM
From: T L Comiskey	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 89467

your Math is good imo......... here's some more to make you wonder about The press..The Gov...and who ever else is blowing smoke you know where T investorshub.com

To: Rick Faurot who wrote (33935)	12/31/2003 11:04:53 AM
From: Rick Faurot	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 89467

Hawks Tell Bush How to Win War on Terror by David Rennie in Washington President George W Bush was sent a public manifesto yesterday by Washington's hawks, demanding regime change in Syria and Iran and a Cuba-style military blockade of North Korea backed by planning for a pre-emptive strike on its nuclear sites. The manifesto, presented as a "manual for victory" in the war on terror, also calls for Saudi Arabia and France to be treated not as allies but as rivals and possibly enemies. The manifesto is contained in a new book by Richard Perle, a Pentagon adviser and "intellectual guru" of the hardline neo-conservative movement, and David Frum, a former Bush speechwriter. They give warning of a faltering of the "will to win" in Washington. In the battle for the president's ear, the manifesto represents an attempt by hawks to break out of the post-Iraq doldrums and strike back at what they see as a campaign of hostile leaking by their foes in such centers of caution as the State Department or in the military top brass. Their publication, An End to Evil: How to Win the War on Terror, coincided with the latest broadside from the hawks' enemy number one, Colin Powell, the secretary of state. Though on leave recovering from a prostate cancer operation, Mr Powell summoned reporters to his bedside to hail "encouraging" signs of a "new attitude" in Iran and call for the United States to keep open the prospect of dialogue with the Teheran authorities. Such talk is anathema to hawks like Mr Perle and Mr Frum who urge Washington to shun the mullahs and work for their overthrow in concert with Iranian dissidents. It may be assumed that their instincts at least are shared by hawks inside the government, whose twin power bases are the Pentagon's civilian leadership and the office of the vice-president, Dick Cheney. Such officials prevailed over invading Afghanistan and Iraq, but have been seen as on the back foot since the autumn as their post-war visions of building a secular, free-market Iraq were scaled back in favor of compromise and a swift handover of power next June. The book demands that any talks with North Korea require the complete and immediate abandonment of its nuclear program. As North Korea will probably refuse such terms, the book urges a Cuba-style military blockade and overt preparations for war, including the rapid pullback of US forces from the inter-Korean border so that they move out of range of North Korean artillery. Such steps, with luck, will prompt China to oust its nominal ally, Kim Jong-il, and install a saner regime in North Korea, the authors write. The authoritarian rule of Syria's leader, Bashar Assad, should also be ended, encouraged by shutting oil supplies from Iraq, seizing arms he buys from Iran, and raids into Syria to hunt terrorists. The authors urge Mr Bush to "tell the truth about Saudi Arabia". Wealthy Saudis, some of them royal princes, fund al-Qa'eda, they write. The Saudi government backs "terror-tainted Islamic organizations" as part of a larger campaign to "spread its extremist version of Islam throughout the Muslim world and into Europe and North America". The book calls for tough action against France and its dreams of offsetting US power. "We should force European governments to choose between Paris and Washington," it states. Britain's independence from Europe should be preserved, perhaps with open access for British arms to American defense markets. © Copyright of Telegraph Group Limited 2003

To: Rick Faurot who wrote (33935)	12/31/2003 11:16:53 AM
From: jlallen	Respond to of 89467

Silly post. Leakers are rarely uncovered by any Administration...we still don't even know the identity of "Deep Throat" from the Watergate era.... You pinheads who see "Bushista" conspiracies under each headline make me laugh....

To: Rick Faurot who wrote (33935)	12/31/2003 5:12:03 PM
From: Raymond Duray	Respond to of 89467

Hi Rick, Re: Ashcroft steps aside and the Bushies pick Fitzgerald, a non-Bushie, to be the fall guy. Patrick Fitzgerald is a political appointee and dependable Bushie, in spite of what has been written regarding his purported "independence" in the media. You know they lie, right? <g> buzzflash.com

To: Rick Faurot who wrote (33935)	1/1/2004 11:30:00 AM
From: Rick Faurot	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 89467

Don't Be Fooled: Still No Independent Investigation of Leak of CIA Identity By Ray McGovern t r u t h o u t \| Perspective Thursday 01 January 2004 It seems it is all too easy to get caught up in the holiday spirit. How else to explain the reaction of the normally astute Senator Charles Schumer to the news that Attorney General Ashcroft has finally done what the New York Times lauds as "the right thing." Schumer is quoted in today's Times as seeing the glass "three-quarters full" in light of Ashcroft's decision to recuse himself from the investigation of the deliberate blowing of the cover of CIA official Valerie Plame, and the decision to appoint US Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald as "special counsel" to investigate that felony. Howard Dean labeled the maneuver "too little, too late." I fear Dean is right. Even the Times, in its "Right Thing" editorial, notes that "there are still serious questions about the investigation," namely, will Fitzgerald have "true operational independence." The odds are strongly against it. Let not yesterday's maneuver obscure the fact that in naming Fitzgerald, who remains under the authority of Ashcroft's deputy, the Bush administration has rejected the only appropriate course-naming a complete outsider to be special counsel. Why has that path been rejected? One need not be paranoid to see this latest move as evidence the White House has something very sensitive to hide. Has one of their senior officials committed a felony, endangered lives, and vitiated the ability of a senior intelligence official to use her net of agents to acquire critical information on weapons of mass destruction (Valerie Plame's portfolio)? But a fellow named Patrick Fitzgerald, like you from Irish immigrant stock in New York City? And out of Harvard Law School? Surely, you should be encouraged, I caught myself thinking. I truly wish I could be. But I have seen far too many FBI lawyers of New York Irish stock with misplaced loyalty to the organization over the law; over the truth; over personal conscience. Respect for and fealty to hierarchy was drummed into us; individual conscience generally played second fiddle. Past experience strongly suggests that if Fitzgerald is told to string the investigation out until after the November election, he may well oblige. If he is told to pin the blame on White House small fry willing to take the fall, he may do it. Besides, Fitzgerald arrives on the scene months after the Ollie North memorial shredder has done its work. Recall that when it was announced that the Justice department would investigate it was made clear that the formal order requiring administration officials to save all relevant documents would come a day or two later. Imagine the heat rising from the shredder machines that weekend. And recall how the White House counsel then insisted on reviewing all documents before they could be given to the Justice department. Last fall even the lawyers at Justice and the FBI were holding their noses. The New York Times' David Johnston and Eric Lichtblau reported on October 16 that several senior criminal prosecutors at Justice and the FBI were privately criticizing Ashcroft for failing to recuse himself or appoint a special prosecutor to investigate the crime. But private criticism is a far cry from the more risky step of taking a strong stand against the organization's chosen course of action. And politics has become more and more important, even in the decision making of so-called career prosecutors. Besides that, the "us vs. them" mentality has gotten still stronger, and many of the Bureau's "good soldiers" remain blissfully unaware of how much they are affected by it. So, even if Fitzgerald himself is determined to launch an "unfettered" investigation, he has this company ethic to contend with. Whether or not he keeps on John Dion, the career lawyer who has been leading the investigation, will be an indication of Fitzgerald's seriousness of purpose. It is no secret in law enforcement circles that Dion has a poor record with leaks, and is reluctant even to go to the men's room without asking permission from his superiors. Small wonder that Valerie Plame's husband, Joe Wilson, has refused to express optimism at the naming of Fitzgerald. Not that there is no hope at all. Wilson has all along expressed some confidence in the potential of career FBI officials, despite the considerable hurdles, to do the right thing-the more so since many of them know only too well the dangers of someone blowing your cover. And then there is the fact that Plame was identified to no fewer than six journalists. It appears likely that at least one of them may decide to come forward, rather than remain, in effect, an accomplice to a felony engineered for political reasons. Bottom line? As Shakespeare put it, the truth will out-eventually. But probably not via a Fitzgerald from within the system. And the outcome of this investigation (like that of the search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq) may not see light until after the November election. ------- Ray McGovern, a 27-year career analyst with the CIA, is co-founder of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity and co-director of the Servant Leadership School, an outreach ministry in the inner-city of Washington, DC.