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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tejek who wrote (182528)	2/13/2004 12:31:49 AM
From: tejek	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1575981

Republicans Attack Kerry in Video and E-Mail By JIM RUTENBERG Published: February 13, 2004 WASHINGTON, Feb. 12 — Republicans attacked Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts on an array of fronts Thursday, the beginning of what party officials said would be an attempt to undercut Mr. Kerry's reputation at a time when he is riding high from repeated victories in primaries and caucuses. On Thursday night, Mr. Bush's campaign posted on its Web site an advertisement-style video juxtaposing Mr. Kerry's promises to stanch the influence of lobbyists in Washington with news articles about large numbers of donations to Mr. Kerry from lobbyists. The video gave a hint of the television advertising war to come between the two men. The Internet commercial appeared hours after Ed Gillespie, the Republican National Committee chairman, gave a speech accusing Mr. Kerry's campaign of running an already unreasonably harsh campaign. And the Republican National Committee sent out e-mail messages accusing Mr. Kerry of changing his stands on major issues. The broadsides have come as some of President Bush's most prominent supporters have been loudly urging him to engage in a fight with Mr. Kerry, concerned that the re-election campaign is not doing enough to slow the Mr. Kerry's momentum. Mr. Kerry's campaign aides said the attacks were evidence that the president was nervous about the increasing possibility that Mr. Kerry he would be the Democratic nominee. "There's one person they don't want to run against and that's John Kerry," said Mr. Kerry's press secretary, Stephanie Cutter. Citing polls showing Mr. Kerry beating Mr. Bush in a head-to-head contest, she added: "They have no choice but to attack below the belt. It's not as if they can talk about the issues." In alerting the news media to the new Web video Thursday night, Mr. Bush's campaign aides said they were merely responding to millions of dollars of advertisements that Mr. Kerry's campaign has run during his primary bid that have used the White House as a whipping post. "After months of John Kerry attacking President Bush on special interests," said Scott Stanzel, a campaign spokesman, "this Web video provides and opportunity for our supporters to see how Senator Kerry's rhetoric doesn't match his record." nytimes.com

To: tejek who wrote (182528)	2/13/2004 1:47:17 AM
From: Buckwheat	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1575981

[If Saddam was not being compliant, how did the weapon inspectors get into the country in 2002 and begin their inspections?] Was he compliant when they had to leave in 1998? Was he being compliant from 1998 to 2002? (this is a country that has historically spent 75% of their GNP on weapons/military, don't forget) And I know you haven't forgotten what events got the inspectors back in during 2002. [They were not sure about the other 5% because some of Saddam's record keeping was poor.] Thanks for making another of my points for me. [As it turns out, all the WMD had been destroyed.] Are you sure about that??? Would you bet your family's lives on that? Would you bet some stranger's life on that? And that 5% does not take into account what was made or bought (with oil kick-backs) during the 1998-2002 period. [We've wasted $300 billion and suffered the loss of over 500 Americans to prove the same point the weapon inspectors could have proven for far less loss.] I've been a soldier for the greater part of my life. I chose to do that just like those 500+ Americans did and for the same reasons. I have been very fortunate. I could never be indifferent to the loss of even one soldier, nor will I ever be able to develop indifference to people who don't appreciate what they do. Weapons inspectors could have never "proven" anything in a thousand years. Weapons inspections involve a large element of trust. Saddam was evil. If you don't believe that then further discussion is futile. Saddam had a history of using WMD on his neighbors and his own people. So 5% could not be accounted for and we don't know what was made, came in, or went out during 1998 - 2002. Don't know where in the desert, SWA, SEA, Africa, Eastern Europe, or the world that "5%" or maybe more might be or who has it. But we do know where this guy and 85% of his henchmen are, don't we. Have you ever seen the victim(s) of a nerve agent? That's a horrible death. Can you imagine a whole village or city or battalion of soldiers dying that way in mass? Can you imagine something like that happening in any number of cities worldwide that have a population of 2 or 3 million or greater. Are any of these worth $300 billion? Do you think Saddam and the inspectors made these cities any safer? Buck