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 : GOPwinger Lies/Distortions/Omissions/Perversions of Truth -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Raymond Duray who wrote (990)	2/8/2004 10:30:03 PM
From: Doug R	Respond to of 173976

AP reported that US Vice President Dick 'Cheney, the keynote speaker at the Republicans' annual Lincoln Days, said the evidence indicates that Saddam Hussein had the intent to use weapons of mass destruction, even though inspectors have not found any massive stockpiles. "We know that Saddam had the capacity to produce weapons of mass destruction," Cheney told the crowd of roughly 800 Republicans at the Renaissance Grand Hotel. "He had the science and technology, and we know that he had the necessary infrastructure because we found the labs." Cheney also said that American forces had found delivery systems for ballistic missiles in Iraq. "We know that Saddam Hussein had the intent to arm his regime with weapons of mass destruction," Cheney said.' Then U.S. Sen. Kit Bond said, "This was a country like honey attracting ants - the terrorists were coming into Iraq." Saddam did not have the capacity to produce weapons of mass destruction, because he did not have active laboratories doing so. He had no "capacity" whatsoever to produce nukes. His country may have had a capacity to produce some chemical weapons, but then so could a twelve year old little boy in Iowa with a bottle of chlorine and a lab set. The point is that they did not have any active production facilities at the time the war was launched. As for "intent," well, Saddam's WMD was destroyed under UN pressure by the mid-1990s, and he never reconstituted the programs or the facilities, so his "intent" was not exactly urgent or being implemented on a relevant timescale. Besides, in military strategy you do not worry about vague abstracts such as the over-all "intent" of your enemy. You worry about his actual, existing, concrete capabilities. These in Iraq's case were obviously null, nada, laughable. As for the delivery systems, this means he had missiles. There is no evidence that he had missiles that could hit anything outside Iraq that had been prepared with chemical warheads and readied for use. That is what Tony Blair says he misunderstood. As for Bond, the fact is that so little terrorist activity originated from Iraq in the late 1990s that the State Department did not bother to list the country as a major terrorist threat. The main terrorist organization active on Iraqi soil was the Mujahidin-i Khalq Organization, which is supported by Washington Neoconservatives like Daniel Pipes and Richard Perle along with some congressmen. A small terrorist group, Ansar al-Islam, operated in the part of Kurdistan that was under United States control as a result of the no-fly zone. It wasn't in the Baath-controlled part of the country. These lies could not be contested last year because of September 11, but it is interesting that the presidential contest appears to have opened up the discourse and allowed the American public to begin questioning what people like Cheney say. As for the support expressed for the so-called Patriot Act at the Republican fundraiser, it is obscene. See ACLU's fact sheet on it. And write your senators and congressmen urging them to protect the US constitution from John Ashcroft. Despite promises made by the Bush administration that the act would only be used against terrorists, the FBI is already using it in ordinary criminal cases, to evade the need for court orders for electronic surveillance. I'm all for catching criminals, but I'm also all for the Fourth Amendment, which the Bush administration is attempting to repeal. mercurynews.com juancole.com aclu.org

To: Raymond Duray who wrote (990)	2/8/2004 10:40:52 PM
From: laura_bush	Respond to of 173976

Excellent post, Ray. This in particular is ludicrously false as to small business: <<FACT – BUSH TAX CUTS HAD LITTLE EFFECT ON SMALL BUSINESS OWNERS The Bush tax cuts had little effect on small business owners. Under the first tax cut, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities reports, small business owners "would be far more likely to receive no tax reduction whatsoever from the Administration's tax package than to benefit" because only 3.7% of small business owners are affected by the top tax rate cuts that were the bulk of the plan. Under the 2003 tax cut, the Urban Institute-Brookings Tax Policy Center estimates "nearly four out of every five tax filers (79%) with small business income would receive less than the amount" while "52% of people with small business returns would get $500 or less." [Source: CBPP, 5/3/01; CBPP, 1/21/03] >> Further, small business is dying on the vine -- strangling with totaly out of control INSURANCE costs. Not only health insurance. Vehicle insurance; facility insurance on inventory; and liability insurance. It is absolutely sickening how he positions this shit as benefitting anyone except the hyperwealthy which include, of course the very top echelon of the Fortune 100 US corporations.

To: Raymond Duray who wrote (990)	2/8/2004 11:45:02 PM
From: BubbaFred	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 173976

How many points did Bushwacko get after the interview? This is important, not the lies or the truth. It's a matter of presentation and public perception. Anything false can be made to appear or resemble the truth by the presentation. Did he smile or smirk the lies through his white teeth, or remained in somber face as if it was cross my heart God's honest truth? This is key later this year. As long as the main stream news media present only one side of the story and not the opposite, then the false become the truth, at least in public perception which counts at the ballot booths.

To: Raymond Duray who wrote (990)	2/9/2004 7:03:59 AM
From: John Sladek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 173976

Jerry Falwell - God is pro-war Posted: January 31, 2004 1:00 a.m. Eastern © 2004 WorldNetDaily.com "To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven: A time to be born, and a time to die; a time to plant, and a time to pluck up that which is planted; A time to kill, and a time to heal; a time to break down, and a time to build up; A time to weep, and a time to laugh; a time to mourn, and a time to dance; A time to cast away stones, and a time to gather stones together; a time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing; A time to get, and a time to lose; a time to keep, and a time to cast away; A time to rend, and a time to sew; a time to keep silence, and a time to speak; A time to love, and a time to hate; a time of war, and a time of peace." (Ecclesiastes 3:1-8) Christians have struggled with the issue of war for centuries. Before Jesus arrived on the scene, all good people wrestled with war and the existence of evil. Thankfully, the Bible is not silent on the subject. Before we examine war, though, let's look at the God of Peace. One of God's primary attributes is peace. Isaiah said the Messiah would bear these names: Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace (Isaiah 9:6). God longs for all people to live in peace. That is how He created the universe – in total peace and harmony. Christians are to be people of peace. One of the most notable biblical commands to live in peace is in Romans 12:18: "If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men." With the Bible clear on our responsibility to live peaceably, it seems that there would be no reason to ever go to war. However, if one depends on the Bible as a guidepost for living, it is readily apparent that war is sometimes a necessary option. In fact, just as there are numerous references to peace in the Bible, there are frequent references to God-ordained war. Many present-day pacifists hold Jesus as their example for unvarying peace. But they ignore the full revelation concerning Jesus pictured in the book of Revelation 19, where He is depicted bearing a "sharp sword" and smiting nations, ruling them with "a rod of iron." Moreover, the Song of Victory in Exodus 15 hails God as a God of war: "… The Lord is a man of war: the Lord is his name." And, as the verses that open this column indicate, there is indeed a time for war. God actually strengthened individuals for war, including Moses, Joshua and many of the Old Testament judges who demonstrated great faith in battle. And God destroyed many armies challenging the Israelites. I Chronicles 14:15 describes God striking down the Philistines. God even gives counsel to be wise in war. Proverbs 20:18: "Every purpose is established by counsel: and with good advice make war." Today, America continues to face the horrible realities of our fallen world. Suicide bombings and terrorist actions are beamed live into our homes daily. This serves as a constant reminder of the frailty of our flesh. It is apparent that our God-authored freedoms must be defended. Throughout the book of Judges, God calls the Israelites to go to war against the Midianites and Philistines. Why? Because these nations were trying to conquer Israel, and God's people were called to defend themselves. President Bush declared war in Iraq to defend innocent people. This is a worthy pursuit. In fact, Proverbs 21:15 tells us: "It is joy to the just to do judgment: but destruction shall be to the workers of iniquity." One of the primary purposes of the church is to stop the spread of evil, even at the cost of human lives. If we do not stop the spread of evil, many innocent lives will be lost and the kingdom of God suffers. Finally, some reading this column will surely ask, "Doesn't the sixth commandment say, 'Thou shalt not kill?'" Actually, no; it says: "Thou shalt not commit murder." There is a difference between killing and murdering. In fact, many times God commanded capital punishment for those who break the law. We continue to live in violent times. The Bible tells us war will be a reality until Christ returns. And when the time is right, Jesus will indeed come again, ending all wars. Until that time, however, Christians must live as Galatians 6:2 instructs: "Bear ye one another's burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ." Rev. Jerry Falwell, a nationally recognized Christian minister and television show host, is the founder of Jerry Falwell Ministries and is chancellor of Liberty University in Lynchburg, Va. worldnetdaily.com