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: Eashoa' M'sheekha who wrote (554359)	3/21/2004 12:29:08 PM
From: PROLIFE	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769667

It's surely a good idea from time to time to look at recent events and ask yourself, "What if?" For instance, what if the Americans had listened to the left, heeded all the protesters, all the enlightened university professors and all the people who told them how awful it would be if they were to actually go to war with Iraq? In other words what if they had a Jean Chretien for president instead of a George W. Bush? Where would we all be now? We would be taking "further diplomatic initiatives," of course. Saddam Hussein would be paying lip service to them while building his arsenal of chemical weapons preparatory for an attack on Israel and gradually assuming the leadership of the militant worldwide Islamic terrorist movement. And every time the Americans failed to move against him, as they had ever since the Gulf War, he would have gained that much more technological strength, that much more credibility with whole Muslim world, so that in the end the West would have had to fight him anyway and probably a great many other countries besides. But none of this has happened and for one elementary reason. The Americans did not listen to the left. They knew the left didn't have the faintest clue what was going on. President Bush - the "moron," remember? - turned out to be absolutely right and they turned out to be absolutely wrong. The real "moron" apparently lives in Ottawa, not Washington. They were wrong about the tens of thousand of civilian casualties they predicted. They were wrong about the street-by-street, house-by-house battle that would demolish the city of Baghdad and send thousands of Americans home in body bags. They were wrong about Syria and Iran coming to the aid of Iraq. They were wrong, so it appears, about everything. And where now, you have to wonder, are all those "informed people" who prophesied all these dire things? Last month, you couldn't turn on the CBC without hearing them talk. Now they don't seem to be saying anything. Surely they must have some explanation for what has occurred. And does this not, in the interests of honest journalism, impose upon the CBC the clear obligation to go back to the scores of people it interviewed before, the people who turned out to be so ill-informed and to whom the CBC lent such unreserved and undeserved credibility, and interview them all again? Ought it not ask them how do they account for this? Where did they go wrong? What did they not foresee and why did they not foresee it? Has the outcome to date changed their opinion of Dubya at all, and if not why not? Would these not be very good questions? Is not some kind of an explanation due? At the same time the CBC management might ask their editors how they were so thoroughly duped by these people. The loss of their credibility is also the loss of the CBC's credibility. But the same thing has been going on for years, of course. Remember all the old issues? The left said not to station cruise missiles in Germany and not to get into Star Wars because there could be no end to this military buildup. The CBC gave full vent at every opportunity to all these views. But the Americans ignored them, persisted in their "militarism" and the entire Soviet system came crashing down. But what if we had heeded the left? Obviously, we'd still be in the midst of the Cold War, or worse. Could not this misperception of political reality and consequent misdirection of public opinion perhaps account for the audience loss the CBC has been steadily experiencing for decades? I remember when you could actually believe what it said, when being Canadian meant being something more than merely anti-American. But those days are long gone. Even so, surely there should be some accountability here. Why can't someone, somewhere in the CBC, get all of these Ottawa and Toronto editorial geniuses together in one room, go over their coverage of the war and the run-up to it, and then ask: "Listen, you guys. Why did you make us look so stupid?" Maybe they could record their answers. I guarantee it would make a great television show. By TED BYFIELD -- Edmonton Sun

To: Eashoa' M'sheekha who wrote (554359)	3/21/2004 12:32:21 PM
From: Hope Praytochange	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

While Conservative Punk does not have a roster of bands exactly, it has inspired the interest and involvement of a consortium of conservatives with proper punk credentials, like Michale Graves, a former singer for the Misfits, who writes a column for Mr. Rizzuto's site. Mr. Graves regularly performs wearing a skull mask and is known for belting out lyrics like: "A fever rots/The brain goes numb inside/I feel a blackout coming/The boiled blister pops inside." He allows that he doesn't fit the profile of your average red-state Republican. "I look like someone who should be hanging out with Marilyn Manson — in fact I have hung out with Marilyn Manson," Mr. Graves said. "It doesn't affect what my morals are." "I think George Bush is a wonderful, competent leader," he added. "And I believe that he is bringing this country on a right and just course and he understands the true nature of evil."

To: Eashoa' M'sheekha who wrote (554359)	3/21/2004 12:51:53 PM
From: Johannes Pilch	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

Are you denying America used millions of chemical in Nam that caused hundreds of thousands of those people to die, along with thousands of American soldiers? I am denying that this has any relevance to the price of cow manure in Farmville. There was no WMD proof..because there were no weapons left and no records available to verify their destruction. You have absolutely no proof of this at all. This is pure leftist speculation – nothing on which an entire country should trust its safety. If there were no weapons left and no records, Saddam still could have avoided his demise by allowing unfettered access to Iraq as he agreed to do. He pointedly refused to allow such access and eventually paid the price for said refusal. He paid this price not at the hands of the leftist Bill Clinton, or the sodomitic French, or the robotic Germans. He paid the price at the hands of the American, George W. Bush. If there were weapons there, and they were destroyed , would'nt the Billion Dollar weapons hunt have turned up something by now to prove there were indeed weapons there at some point in time? This is no argument. You don’t know that it would have or would not have "turned up something" because the “weapons hunt,” so-called, at no time was ever complete and unfettered, as Saddam promised it would be. Besides, Saddam had 12 years to prepare for exactly the sort of search we conducted. It is quite possible that a trillion dollar weapons hunt would not have turned up anything under such circumstances. Here is what we knew without any doubt at all. We knew he had WMD. We knew this because of this: images.google.com. We also knew he had an obligation to destroy his WMD and prove the destruction. We knew he had an obligation to allow us unfettered access to his country so that we could satisfy our own requirements. We knew that he pointedly refused to fulfill his obligations after agreeing to them. We knew it was absolutely stupid to accept, as leftists quite easily accept, that those Iraqi WMD no longer existed while having not a single shred, I mean not even a shred(!) of proof to that effect. Have you considered this? Quite obviously I have-- apparently unlike you and every single leftist in the world.

To: Eashoa' M'sheekha who wrote (554359)	3/21/2004 1:22:56 PM
From: Suma	Respond to of 769667

Logical explanations get ignored. You only get called names, told you are conspiring with Terrorists (i.e. Prolife to StockmanScott's posts) I notice a plethora of venom spewed on this Board when there can be no substantiated contradictions... Almost every post on this site is documented as to where it was obtained, who said it and the source.. What I read in response is how we are Leftists,Anti-American and other charges that are purely hypothetical and filled with such hate. Name calling serves no purpose...except to inflame and antagonize. Wouldn't it be nice if in the the attacks, that person would do documentation that matches the intelligence of the poster who does research his posts. Then we all could be enlightened..