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: J_F_Shepard who wrote (555157)	3/22/2004 10:32:54 PM
From: CYBERKEN	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

Saddam WAS Al-Quaida. He is now canned Spam. We have plenty of Spam cans for the REST of subhuman Islam. The slimy traitor, John Kerry, won't be calling the shots in THIS war...

To: J_F_Shepard who wrote (555157)	3/22/2004 10:36:59 PM
From: Hope Praytochange	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769667

Terror won't sway U.S. voters March 22, 2004 BY ROBERT NOVAK SUN-TIMES COLUMNIST George Friedman, who runs the Stratfor private intelligence service, spotted a change in al-Qaida's outlook over the last year. The Islamist terrorist organization, which previously treated George W. Bush as largely irrelevant to its global designs, now has zeroed in on the president. Combining that change with the terrorist triumph in Spain points to an ominous trend in the war on terrorism -- and in the U.S. presidential election. Failure of the Arab ''street'' to rise in response to the U.S. military intervention in Afghanistan and Iraq has led to questions in the Arab world about al-Qaida's relevance. The coordinated attack on Madrid commuter trains showed al-Qaida still can create havoc. However, the global significance is the electoral defeat of Spain's conservative party. Headed for victory against the weak socialist opposition, the popular regime was voted out after the terrorist attack because it sent troops to Iraq. Al-Qaida's regeneration points to the risk of suffering Spain's fate for any government joining forces with President Bush. But Friedman believes the ultimate target is Bush himself, predicting an attempted use of terror to defeat him in November. And that intent puts Sen. John Kerry in an uncomfortable posture. Kerry's claim that unnamed foreign leaders told him they hoped for Bush's defeat is regarded in Democratic circles as the senator's first major blunder as prospective nominee. He cannot say who these leaders are, but the Bush-Cheney campaign has pointed to two overseas Kerry boosters that the senator did not have in mind: Kim Jong Il, North Korea's communist dictator, and Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, Spain's prime minister-elect. Kim's propaganda machine lately has taken to playing the American's speeches on state radio. Zapatero stunned Spanish Foreign Ministry professionals Wednesday by noting with approval that ''the Americans will do it [change governments as Spain did] if things continue as they are in Kerry's favor.'' The foreigner whose approbation Kerry surely disdains is Osama bin Laden, but counterterrorism experts say the U.S. election has become an al-Qaida priority. After last week's stunning Spanish election, a Stratfor report said, ''given the use of planted explosives in Madrid rather than suicide bombers, al-Qaida is likely planning to carry on with this tactic, particularly given the tremendous success of the operation in Spain.'' Britain, Italy, Portugal, the Netherlands, Poland, Hungary and Australia were listed as U.S.-aligned nations risking the Spanish punishment. Stratfor added: ''A wave of attacks in those countries against soft targets . . . could shift the global balance.'' A new al-Qaida strategy twist was hinted last Thursday when the group that claimed responsibility for the Madrid bombings offered a cease-fire if Spanish troops actually leave Iraq as promised by Zapatero. That first known possible al-Qaida offer to negotiate with the West pressures weak European governments who might prefer appeasement to the fate of Spain. However, in Friedman's opinion, al-Qaida's big target will be the United States. He sees an attack earlier (in the summer) rather than later (in the autumn), when it might boost Bush's re-election chances. ''The grand prize,'' said a Stratfor report, ''would be triggering an election defeat for Bush.'' The reaction from the left wing of the Democratic Party was sounded by Howard Dean, clinging to his national platform weeks after his presidential campaign collapsed. Dean said Bush ''was the one who dragged our troops to Iraq, which apparently has been a factor in the death of 200 Spaniards over the weekend.'' Kerry, clearly appalled, was succinct in his reaction to Dean: ''It's not our position.'' Kerry is an experienced politician who has been uncharacteristically reckless in the euphoria of his party victory. He is sailing dangerous waters, supported by rogue dictators and leftist opportunists around the world and risking rejection at home. Climaxing more than three centuries of defeat and decline on the world stage, Spaniards bowed to terrorism when they voted. Americans are considerably less likely to make that choice. suntimes.com

To: J_F_Shepard who wrote (555157)	3/23/2004 11:06:53 AM
From: Johannes Pilch	Respond to of 769667

Just one point because I don't feel like laboring over your repititous rants....its all been said a dozen times before and for a guy who doesn't even have a TV, one wonders how you stay in touch. Quite pathetic. I am persuaded that TV is not a necessity, ostensibly unlike you. Indeed it is a consumer of life, forcing those who partake of it into passivity. I prefer to stay “in touch” via less passive means. I read newspapers, magazines and news from sites on the web, one of which I am accessing right now. (duh suh) Fact......Bush was shown there was no connection between Al-Qaida and Saddam and he accepts that....why don't you? Because it is completely irrelevant. The issue driving Bush’s decision was not that there was a direct connection between Saddam and Iraq. The issue was that Saddam had an obligation to verify destruction of his WMD and since Saddam continually refused to grant this verification, America, in view of 911, could ill-afford to allow this state of events to continue. Were Saddam in possession of WMD, he could eventually supply Al Qaeda, which could deploy these weapons as it now deploys others. Bush is not a leftist. He actually thinks and plans for the defense of his country. In fact, he actually said that his aim was to make sure the situation with Saddam could never become one in which America had to press against a dictator and terrorists with WMD between them. His is quite a reasonable approach, considering the circumstances. Iraq was not a threat to us and did nothing to us to merit an invasion; they were not involved in any terrorism against us, and did not make threats against us..... The mere fact that Iraq repeatedly failed to fulfill its obligation to disarm and allow certification of the disarmament caused Iraq to present itself as a threat, especially in view of 911. Bush had a vendetta against them probably because his father was embarassed by Saddam who tried to kill him after GWI. Mere empty-headed leftist speculation that completely overlooks the elephant in the living room. Richard Clarke describes his obsession with Iraq to the exclusion of all other sources of terrorism. Dear me. This is so naïve it vicariously embarrasses me. There are now two elephants in the living room, Shep, and you've failed to see either of them. Clarke is selling a book-- for a publisher that is owned by company that owns the TV network by which you have heard all this crap. You need to dump the “tube” by which you get your information pumped into your leftist skull and read for a friggin’ change. It helps develop critical thinking skills.