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: Doug R who wrote (17397)	8/4/2004 6:39:20 AM
From: KonKilo	Respond to of 173976

Tennesse's become a battleground state too. I have talked with many a good ol' boy, here in Chattanooga, who has had enough of the Bush cabal. I think GWB's support, here in this GOP-stronghold, buckle-of-the-Bible-Belt, is extremely soft. I predict he loses Tennessee.

To: Doug R who wrote (17397)	8/4/2004 9:38:37 AM
From: JakeStraw	Respond to of 173976

Making a Dent in Liberal Disinformation: ''The Rush to War'' Written by Lester Dent Wednesday, August 04, 2004 Editor's Note: We're always hearing about how Democrats use the "Talking Points" that are prepared by the Democratic National Committee. Writer Lester Dent thought that our readers might like to have their own Talking Points about current issues, so he's researched several hot issues and will be sharing them with us. Today's topic: "The Rush to War." Look for new topics in days to come. Series: "Making a Dent in Liberal Disinformation" The following is a short series for rebutting liberal talking points. Talking Point 1: The Rush to War How often have you heard references to President Bush’s ''rush to war?'' Care to put it into perspective? And I don't mean the perspective of John Kerry, who has decried the president's ''rush to war" but now criticizes President Bush for not having a ''sense of urgency'' about protecting the U.S. In a news conference on August 1, Kerry warned: ''We can't afford reluctance in the protection of our country.'' msnbc.msn.com I want to put the ''rush to war'' in historical perspective. Gulf War: August 2, 1990 - Saddam invades Kuwait November 1990 - U.N. Security Council Resolution 678 authorizes members to remove Saddam from Kuwait January 12, 1991 - Congress authorizes U.S. military action January 17, 1991 - Desert Shield commences ----------------- Time frame: 5 1/2 months Afghanistan September 11, 2001 – America attacked, war on terrorism begins in earnest September 15, 2001 - Congress authorizes President to take whatever military action is needed October 7, 2001 - War started against Taliban ----------------- Time frame: 26 days Iraq March 2, 1991 - UNSCR 686 provides conditional cease-fire providing Saddam abides by conditions, which he fails to do January 2002 - President warns Iraq in State of the Union speech July 2002 - U.N.-Iraq talks break down in Geneva with no result September 16, 2002 - Saddam accepts ''unconditional'' return on weapons inspectors September 30, 2002 - Saddam insists that inspectors have no access to 8 presidential compounds October 2, 2002 - Congress gives Bush approval for military operations against Iraq November 2002 - U.N. unanimously passes UNSCR 1441 December 2002 - Iraq declared in material breach of 1441 March 7, 2003 - Hans Blix reports that Iraq is still in material violation of 1441 March 18, 2003 - Bush gives Saddam 48 hours to leave Iraq March 20, 2003 - Operation Iraqi Freedom begins ----------------- Time Frame: 12 years, or 14 months, or 5 1/2 months Now, if we look at it reasonably, we could say that the build-up to war took 12 years. Or we can date it from Bush's 2002 SOTU speech, in which the ''rush'' was 14 months. Or we can look at it from the time Congress authorized the use of force, which was 5 1/2 months. Afghanistan was a rush – in 26 days. But the shortest time period you can measure, from the authorization of force against Saddam by Congress to the bunker-busters in Baghdad was 5 ½ months – the same time frame from Saddam's invasion of Kuwait to the US-led coalition action in Desert Shield/Storm. Bush 41 acted in 5 days following Congress’ approval to launch Desert Shield; Bush 43 waited 5 ½ months to pursue a wide range of diplomatic efforts before launching Operation Iraqi Freedom. Since Operation Iraqi Freedom was first and foremost an enforcement of UNSCR 686 (Saddam’s violation of the cease-fire), it was a very long time coming.

To: Doug R who wrote (17397)	8/4/2004 9:42:44 AM
From: JakeStraw	Respond to of 173976

Gen. Franks: Iraq Had WMDs in 2003 Wednesday, Aug. 4, 2004 12:48 a.m. EDT Jordan's King Abdullah and Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak personally assured Gen. Tommy Franks that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction within two months of the U.S.'s attack, the former Centcom Commander revealed on Tuesday. "The Jordanians have reliable intelligence and sources in Iraq that say, in fact, that Saddam Hussein has biological and chemical weapons," Franks said King Abdullah told him. The Jordanian king passed the WMD intelligence on to Franks during a face-to-face meeting in Jan. 2003. A warning from Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak was even stronger, Franks said. In his book "American Soldier," the ex-Centcom chief quotes Mubarak saying, "You've got to be very, very careful, general. We have spoken with Saddam Hussein. He is a madman. He has weapons of mass destruction, biological weapons. And he will use them against your troops." "A number of other leaders in the Mideast told us he had them, too," Franks told Hannity, adding, "If you were president of the United States, could you avoid paying attention to that?" The capacity crowd cheered when Hannity announced, "How about Tommy Franks for President? I'll tell you they'll be no more terrorism." "We don't want our kids to fight, Franks told Hannity. "But sometimes they have to fight and when they do, we have to support them," he added, before saluting two servicemen in uniform standing in the back of the room. "It doesn't take a lot of bravery for the general," Franks told the crowd, "but it takes a lot of bravery by guys like those standing right there." The Iraq war commander, who calls himself a political Independent, said he wasn't ready to announce which candidate he's backing in this year's presidential election. But he told Hannity, "I'm leaning towards George W. Bush." Asked about Sen. John Kerry, Gen. Franks responded that because of the war on terror, America now needs its military more than it has in decades. "And we just need to ask ourselves, 'Is Sen. Kerry going to be very respectful of the military of our country?'" But he took umberage at Kerry's decision to protest the Vietnam War while U.S. troops were still in harm's way. "I guess at the end of the day John Kerry will have to live himself," the former Centcom chief said. Gen. Franks also took issue with conspiracy filmmaker Michael Moore, who recently challenged Fox News Channel host Bill O'Reilly to say whether he would send his son off to "die for Fallujah." U.S. troops, said Franks, "are not there to die for Fallujah; they're there to protect the United States of America."