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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sun Tzu who wrote (142723)	8/6/2004 3:54:17 PM
From: longnshort	Respond to of 281500

Doctors Diagnose Kerry As High Risk From The Wall Street Journal By Robert S. Greenberger August 5, 2004 At a recent town-hall meeting in Grand Rapids, Mich., a doctor told John Kerry that many physicians oppose the Democratic presidential candidate because they think he wouldn't curb costly medical-malpractice lawsuits. The Massachusetts senator's response: … Mr. Kerry would surprise physicians by moving on medical-liability suits -- despite the Democrats' longtime ties to trial lawyers. But, to many doctors, Mr. Kerry is carrying heavy baggage … his running mate, Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina. Mr. Edwards, a former trial lawyer, made a fortune suing doctors and others for medical malpractice. As a result, he has become the lightning rod in a well-financed doctors' campaign against the Democratic ticket. For years, Senate Democrats have thwarted Republican efforts to curb medical-malpractice awards … Physician frustration over the impasse boiled over in two full-page ads that ran in The Wall Street Journal on July 27 during the Democratic convention. Paid for by the American Neurological Surgery Political Action Committee, the ads contended that "Kerry and Edwards care more about lawyers' wealth than patients' health." ... For Entire Article Please Visit: online.wsj.com (Subscription Required)

To: Sun Tzu who wrote (142723)	8/11/2004 9:26:27 AM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

I still don't see where Bush actually stated that Bin Laden doesn't matter, as you stated in your previous post. Message 20386860 Now are you just putting words in Bush's mouth, or can you document your assertions? I believe Bush DOES care whether Bin Laden is alive or dead. But so long as he's hanging out in Pakistan, he's content not to create an international crisis so long as Musharraf displays serious effort to capture and/or deter Bin Laden and AQ. After all, AQ attempted to assassinate Mushie twice last year, so he's probably gotten the message that he has to plant himself firmly on the US side (even those he maintains convenient ambiguity at home in order to prevent a civil way). It would be much easier for Bush to go after Bin Laden were he hanging out in, say, Syria.... There's a government that needs to be dealt with, and the downside is relative minor on an international economic scale. Iran might also be good for Bush, were Bin Laden hiding there.. But with BL allegedly in Pakistan, exactly what would have Mr. Bush do?? Invade? Not exactly smart.. Should we pressure Mushie to accept US troops to "assist" him in his military efforts? Also not wise.. It would likely ignite the civil war he's trying to avoid, while he seeks to eak out some political majority of support. You say BL is a symbol.. But I say that symbols are mighty empty when they don't have the financial resources to attract multitudes of followers. If you want to defeat terrorism, defeat the sources of finance that facilitate and support it. And that's in the oil countries of the Persian Gulf. Hawk