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: PartyTime who wrote (7098)	3/22/2004 10:58:00 AM
From: TigerPaw	Respond to of 173976

President Bush said Monday that California's electricity shortages should be solved "in California by Californians" as he convened a Cabinet task force to examine long-term energy policy. cnn.com The lies change, but not the liars TP

To: PartyTime who wrote (7098)	3/22/2004 11:07:28 AM
From: Karen Lawrence	Respond to of 173976

Pretty much everything Bush said to lead us to war was a lie and many of us knew it. From The Nation March 6, 2003: thenation.com President George W. Bush has a case for going to war. It's a slim case, but a case. And he keeps undermining it with dishonest remarks. During his Thursday night press conference--only the eighth news conference of his presidency (Bill Clinton had logged 30 by this point in his first term)--Bush once again tried to argue for war. He offered nothing new. And, to be fair, at this stage of the game--after months of prep work--no one should expect to hear much in the way of fresh argument. But Bush took one more shot at explaining his thinking. He asserted that "Saddam Hussein and his weapons are a direct threat to this country, to our people, and to all free people. If the world fails to confront the threat posed by the Iraqi regime...free nations would assume immense and unacceptable risk....We will not wait to see what terrorists or terrorist states could do with weapons of mass destruction. We are determined to confront threats wherever they arise." In the post-9/11 world, any possibility of a brutal dictator with anti-American sentiments acquiring nuclear, biological and chemical weapons has to be considered worrisome and worthy of a vigorous response. Bush and his crew are right: one cannot assume that absence of evidence (of weapons of mass destruction) is the same thing as evidence of absence (of WMD). The US government ought to identify potential foes and potential attacks and develop the means to neutralize them early. Perhaps it might even be prudent in some circumstances to move against such threats before undeniable proof can be assembled, more so if the targets are known murderers, torturers, and thugs who do not deserve the benefit of the doubt. Even if questions remain about a preemptive course of action, it may still be warranted, particularly if the potential threat were sufficiently dire. (If Washington had sketchy indications that Kim Jong Il was poised to sell a nuclear bomb to a terrorist outfit, how long should it wait--how much evidence should it amass--before deciding to intervene and forcibly stop the transfer?) One could argue that while the actual danger posed by Saddam Hussein (and whatever weapons he might possess or might develop) is difficult to assess, the United States cannot risk guessing wrongly. At the news conference, Bush declared, "My job is to protect the American people." Clearly, his expansive view of that mandate includes going to war against a tyrant whose actions may end up threatening the United States. Bush's problem has been that a case for war based on the potential threat from Iraq is, obviously, not as compelling as a case predicated on an actual and immediate threat. If a nation faces a potential threat, it has the luxury of weighing--and debating--various aspects of going to war: the moral legitimacy of the action, the possible consequences and costs, how other governments and populations will react, the alternatives to an invade-and-occupy response. Many of these concerns, though, could be shoved aside, if the United States were confronting a clear-and-present danger. Consequently, Bush has had to hype the case--to present it in black-and-white terms in order to turn a judgment call into an imperative. So there he was on Thursday night, again talking up the supposed connection between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda. He claimed that Saddam "has trained and financed" al Qaeda and other terrorist groups. He referred to "a poison plant in northeast Iraq" and "a man named Zarqawi who is in charge of the poison network." And he said, "To assume that Saddam Hussein knew none of this was going on is not to really understand the nature of the Iraqi society." Bush was referencing statements Secretary of State Colin Powell had made to the UN in early February, when he claimed, "Iraq today harbors a deadly terrorist network headed by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, an associate and collaborator of Osama bin Laden and his al Qaeda lieutenants." But after Powell's speech, The Washington Post reported, "A senior administration official with knowledge of the intelligence information said that evidence had not yet established that Baghdad had any operational control over Zarqawi's network, or over any transfer of funds or materiel to it." And reporters who visited the so-called "poison plant"--which was set up in an area of Iraq not under the control of Saddam Hussein--found only a primitive base for a local fundamentalist outfit. Even at the eleventh hour, Bush still cannot persuasively tie Baghdad to al Qaeda. (Would he say that Pakistan was "harboring" Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the top al Qaeda official recently arrested there?) Since Bush cannot make the threat-end of his case more convincing--he seems to have stretched the available evidence as far as it can go--he has attempted to strengthen his argument by dissembling on other fronts. During the press conference, he said he was willing to stick with "diplomacy" for a little while longer. That is not so. What he is willing to do is to spend a few more days trying to wring out of the UN Security Council a resolution that would directly or indirectly approve a US-led attack against Iraq. But diplomacy entails more than winning approval for war. In most instances, it would mean resolving a conflict without resorting to the use of force. But Bush has offered no alternatives to all-out war. Sure, if Saddam fled the country, Bush might accept that as a reason to call off the invasion.