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: PROLIFE who wrote (534780)	2/3/2004 12:22:40 PM
From: DizzyG	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769670

An interesting article... Kay vindicates Bush David Limbaugh February 3, 2004 In light of weapons inspector David Kay's recent statements, it is mystifying to me that President Bush and Republicans aren't claiming vindication and challenging Democrats for exploiting the issue. Some observations about this: 1. Kay did say we didn't discover major stockpiles of recently developed WMD in Iraq, but almost everything else he said supports the president's position, exposing his opponents as wrong and reckless. Kay said or implied that: A. "The intelligence community owes the president (an apology) rather than the president owing (one to) the American people." B. The administration did not pressure the intelligence agencies to overstate the WMD threat. C. While Bush relied on possibly erroneous intelligence, so did Saddam himself and his generals, the Clinton administration, France, Germany and Britain. D. "What we learned during the inspection made Iraq a more dangerous place, potentially, than, in fact, we thought it was even before the war." E. Iraq was a magnet for international terrorists who were free to operate there, and plan and conduct their deadly mischief. F. Saddam was flagrantly violating U.N. resolutions in a number of respects and feverishly trying to do so in others. While there were supposedly no major WMD stockpiles, there were probably WMDs, some of which may have been removed to Syria in the weeks preceding our invasion. Saddam was trying to weaponize the deadly agent Ricin, and he was clearly developing missile systems in contravention of the resolutions. G. Saddam's scientists may have duped him about their progress in developing WMD. 2. Bill Clinton recently said that when he ordered the bombing of Iraq's suspected WMD sites, we couldn't be sure whether we (and Britain) destroyed all of them, 50 percent or 10 percent -- because we didn't have inspectors on the ground to determine the extent of the damage. While Clinton was trying to take credit for possibly destroying Iraq's WMD, he inadvertently exposed his party's hypocrisy. Did Democrats complain that he bombed these sites when we didn't even know if WMD were there? Did Democrats complain about weaknesses in our intelligence because we never learned whether we struck pay dirt with those bombing attacks? Did they call for an investigation? 3. It's a little hard for me to swallow the idea that just one of Saddam's scientists deceived him, much less a network of them who would have had to discuss their lies conspiratorially, increasing the chances that they would be exposed (and then murdered). 4. But, if Kay is correct that Saddam was duped, how can we say we had an avoidable failure of intelligence? If a dictator with unchecked power has faulty intelligence about his own regime, how can our intelligence agencies be blamed for having that same info? 5. Intelligence is at best, an inexact science. It is hard to stomach all these armchair quarterbacks demanding perfection from the very intelligence organizations they and their like-minded predecessors emasculated in previous decades. If there were intelligence failures, they were probably not technological ones, but those of human intelligence (HUMINT), which is precisely what liberals weakened. 6. I question Kay's assertion that "you cannot have pre-emptive foreign or military policy unless you have pristine, perfect intelligence." Since much intelligence depends on the human factor, which is inherently imperfect, we will often not be completely certain about our intelligence. Yet, as even Kay admits, it was imperative that we act anyway. The only way we could prevent Saddam from developing and using WMD or sharing them with terrorists was to remove him from power forcibly. 7. And with all due respect to Mr. Kay and others, we did not, as I've written many times before, have the burden of proving Saddam had WMD. He had the duty of proving he had destroyed them and his programs. This he deliberately and defiantly failed to do. Our "preemptive" attack was justified with or without the continued existence of WMD. In this sense, it wasn't even preemptive; it was to enforce already violated resolutions. 8. President Bush has been pressured to conduct an independent investigation even though we don't know for sure that there was truly an intelligence failure that could realistically have been avoided. But as important as intelligence is in our war on terror, we can greatly benefit from a comprehensive review, provided its purpose remains constructive -- to expose and solve problems -- rather than to find a convenient scapegoat. 9. It doesn't make sense that Bush would have lied about WMD knowing that his lie would be exposed when we defeated Iraq. It's time for Democrats to "move on." ©2003 Creators Syndicate, Inc townhall.com

To: PROLIFE who wrote (534780)	2/3/2004 12:25:18 PM
From: DizzyG	Respond to of 769670

Another interesting article... Class warfare isn't classy By Neil Cavuto Published February 3, 2004 They call it class warfare. For the life of me, I don't know why. There's nothing classy about pitting one group of people against another. There's nothing classy about telling the rich in this country that their gains are somehow ill-gotten. There's nothing classy about saying the rich get back more money but never saying boo about the simple fact they pay more money -- a lot more money. And there's nothing classy about lying. Because truth be told, this isn't about us and what we're paying. It's about the government and what it's keeping. Some people really like and trust the government and want to give more money to the government. I am not in that camp. I am in the camp that says I would much sooner trust you with your money than any bureaucrat with your money. But it's more fundamental than that. The reason I find myself throwing things at the television every time I hear Democratic candidates speak is they all but say they hate rich people. Rich people are greedy. Rich people are selfish. Rich people don't deserve a break. Well, give me a break. Look, I have known rich people who were fools and poorer people who were fools. Trust me on this one: Charlatans know no pedigree, and decency knows no salary range. You can make a lot of money and have zero scruples or make no money and have no scruples. But I'll tell you this: Most rich people I've known are good, hard-working, start-from-scratch people. Contrary to the impression they have somehow come into this world with silver spoons in their mouths, government statistics show the vast majority of John Kerry's targeted $200,000-and-over crowd is self-made. If they have a silver spoon, they bought it with their own money and their own sweat. You know, not once in my life has a poor person hired me. Rich guys, or at least richer guys, did. Trust me, they weren't all saints, but all the ones I've known were willing to give this Italian-Irish kid from working-class roots a chance ... whether it be scooping ice cream in a shop or churning out perfume in a factory. Poor people get their breaks from rich people. The government can hand out a check. But the rich guy makes an investment. There's a fundamental difference here that marks the very essence of capitalism. The best way out of the gutter isn't a payment from a bureaucrat but an opportunity from a businessman. The class of our system of government is that it doesn't distinguish between classes at all. All can share in the American dream if they toil long enough and sacrifice enough. Some have neither the appetite nor work ethic to bother with this, but that doesn't mean we abuse those who do. Only in America can we turn on those who made this country great and tear them down precisely because they did. Look, I'm not saying we have to all shout a big "thank you," but they're due a lot more than a "drop dead." There's nothing classy in that argument, just as there's nothing classy in saying the rich don't already more than foot the bill. The top 1 percent of wage-earners in this country account for more than a third of the taxes collected in this country. The top 5 percent pay more than half. If that's getting off lightly, what's considered getting bludgeoned? You make more in this country. You pay more in this country. It was that way before the president's tax cuts. It's been that way since the president's tax cuts. It's amazing to me that bureaucrats who live off the system are bashing the guys who give 'em the sustenance. That's the real class story. Pity there's not a politician with the class to report it. Neil Cavuto is managing editor of Business News at FOX News Channel and is a nationally syndicated columnist. Copyright © 2004 News World Communications, Inc. All rights reserved. washingtontimes.com Diz-