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 : Just the Facts, Ma'am: A Compendium of Liberal Fiction -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: American Spirit who wrote (4743)	3/8/2004 1:44:27 AM
From: KLP	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 90947

So you say. Give me please the actual speech, day, time, and to whom he spoke. Even a link if there is one. If not, I'll see if there is one depending on what you reply. Either way, Kerry should have said that to CLINTON, in 2000, not BUSH! Or don't you remember that Bush wasn't even in office until about Jan 20, 2001

To: American Spirit who wrote (4743)	3/8/2004 3:18:26 AM
From: Sully-	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 90947

Well, Kerry said most of what AS posted. Kerry did NOT mention hijacked planes being used as weapons in his rambling speech. AS is so deceptive in what he asserts & what turns out to be reality, as usual. You are absolutely correct that Kerry should have (and Kerry actually did) deliver this warning to Clinton as these REMARKS (not a speech) were delivered on June 8, 2000. Below is a slightly longer snippet than AS posted. It clearly shows that in June 2000, Kerry sounded more like Bush at the time. Funny how Kerry has completely flip flopped on these positions......... <font size=4> Remarks by Senator John F. Kerry (D-MA) on "National Missile Defense: A Decision Too Important to Rush" Congressional Record-106th Congress June 8, 2000 <font size=3> .....In short, Mr. President, even as we remain clear-eyed about the threat these nations <North Korea, Iraq & Iran> pose to American interests, we must not look at the danger as somehow preordained and unavoidable. In cooperation with our friends and allies, we must vigorously employ the tools of diplomacy to reduce the threat, and we must redouble our efforts to stop the proliferation of these deadly weapons. And we can not just dismiss the importance of the U.S. military deterrence. Only madmen bent on self-destruction would launch a missile against U.S. soil and invite the sure, swift, devastating U.S. response. My second major concern about the current debate over the missile threat is that it does nothing to address equally dangerous, but more immediate and more likely threats to U.S. interests. For one, U.S. troops and U.S. allies today confront the menace of theater ballistic missiles capable of delivering chemical and biological weapons. We saw during the Gulf War how important theater missile defense is to maintaining allied unity and enabling our troops to focus on their mission. We must continue to push this technology forward, regardless of whether we deploy an NMD system. The American people also face the very real threat of terrorist attack. The 1999 State Department report on Patterns of Global Terrorism shows that, while the threat of state sponsored terrorism against the U.S. is declining, the threat from non-state actors who increasingly have access to chemical and biological weapons, and possibly even small nuclear devices is on the rise. These terrorist groups are most likely to attack us covertly, quietly slipping explosives into a building, unleashing chemical weapons into a crowded subway, or sending a crude nuclear weapon into a busy harbor. An NMD system won't protect American citizens from these threats..... clw.org