SI
SI
discoversearch

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: steve dietrich who wrote (601651)8/9/2004 12:21:48 AM
From: jim-thompson  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 769670
 
Remember the guy who got on a plane with a bomb built into his shoe and tried to light it? Did you know his trial is over? Did you know he was sentenced? Did you see/hear any of the judge's comments on TV/Radio?

Didn't think so, media at work again. Everyone should hear what the judge had to say...... The Ruling by Judge William Young U.S. District Court. Prior to sentencing, the Judge asked the defendant if he had anything to say.

His response: After admitting his guilt to the court for the record, Reid also admitted his "allegiance to Osama bin Laden, to Islam, and to the religion of
Allah," defiantly stated "I think I ought not apologize for my actions," and told the court, "I am at war with your country."

Judge Young then delivered the statement quoted below, a stinging condemnation of Reid in particular and terrorists in general.

January 30, 2003 United States vs. Reid. Judge Young:

"Mr. Richard C. Reid, hearken now to the sentence the Court imposes upon you. On counts 1, 5 and 6 the Court sentences you to life in prison in the custody
of the United States Attorney General.

On counts 2, 3, 4 and 7, the Court sentences you to 20 years in prison on each count, the sentence on each count to run consecutive with the other. That's 80 years. On count 8 the Court sentences you to the mandatory 30 years consecutive to the 80 years just imposed. The Court imposes upon you each of the eight counts a fine of $250,000 for the aggregate fine of $2 million. The Court accepts the government's recommendation with respect to restitution and orders restitution in the amount of $298.17 to Andre Bousquet and $5,784 to American Airlines. The Court imposes upon you the $800 special assessment. The Court imposes upon you five years supervised release simply because the law requires it.

But the life sentences are real life sentences so I need go no further. This is the sentence that is provided for by our statutes. It is a fair and just sentence. It is a righteous sentence.

Let me explain this to you. We are not afraid of you or any of your terrorist co-conspirators, Mr. Reid. We are Americans. We have been through the fire before. There is all too much war talk here. And I say that to everyone with the utmost respect. Here in this court, we deal with individuals as individuals, and care for individuals as individuals.

As human beings, we reach out for justice. You are not an enemy combatant. You are a terrorist. You are not a soldier in any war. You are a terrorist.

To give you that reference, to call you a soldier, gives you far too much stature. Whether it is the officers of government who do it or your attorney who does it, or that happens to be your view, you are a terrorist. And we do not negotiate with
terrorists. We do not treat with terrorists. We do not sign documents with terrorists. We hunt them down one by one and bring them to justice.

So war talk is way out of line in this court. You are a big fellow. But you are not that big. You're no warrior. I know warriors. You are a terrorist. A species of criminal guilty of multiple attempted murders.

In a very real sense, State Trooper Santiago had it right when you first were taken off that plane and into custody and you wondered where the press and where the TV crews were, and he said "you're no big deal". You're no big deal.

What your counsel, what your able counsel and what the equally able United States attorneys have grappled with and what I have as honestly as I know how tried to grapple with, is why you did something so horrific. What was it that led you here to this courtroom today?

I have listened respectfully to what you have to say. And I ask you to search your
heart and ask yourself what sort of unfathomable hate led you to do what you are guilty of, and admit you are guilty of doing. And I have an answer for you. It may not satisfy you. But as I search this entire record, it comes as close to understanding as I know.

It seems to me you hate the one thing that is most precious. You hate our freedom. Our individual freedom. Our individual freedom to live as we choose, to come and go as we choose, to believe or not believe as we individually choose.

Here, in this society, the very winds carry freedom. They carry it everywhere from sea to shining sea. It is because we prize individual freedom so much that you are here in this beautiful courtroom. So that everyone can see, truly see, that justice is
administered fairly, individually, and discreetly.

It is for freedom's sake that your lawyers are striving so vigorously on your behalf and have filed appeals, will go on in their representation of you before other judges. We are about it. Because we all know that the way we treat you, Mr. Reid, is the measure of our own liberties.

Make no mistake though. It is yet true that we will bear any burden; pay any price, to preserve our freedoms. Look around this courtroom. Mark it well.
The world is not going to long remember what you or I say here. Day after tomorrow it will be forgotten. But this, however, will long endure.

Here in this courtroom and courtrooms all across America, the American people will gather to see that justice, individual justice, justice, not war, individual justice is, in fact, being done.

The very President of the United States through his officers will have to come into courtrooms and lay out evidence on which specific matters can be judged, and juries of citizens will gather to sit and judge that evidence democratically, to mold and shape and refine our sense of justice.

See that flag, Mr Reid? That's the flag of the United States of America. That flag will fly there long after this is all forgotten. That flag stands for freedom. You know it always will.

Custody, Mr. Officer. Stand him down."

So, how much of this Judge's comments did we hear on our TV sets? We need more judges like Judge Young, but that's another subject.
Pass this around. Everyone should and needs to hear what this fine judge had to say. Powerful words that strike home....



To: steve dietrich who wrote (601651)8/9/2004 8:27:37 AM
From: JakeStraw  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 769670
 
Did Saddam Use Oil-for-Food to Bankroll bin Laden?

Sunday, Aug. 8, 2004 12:53 p.m. EDT

Saddam Hussein may have used a portion of the $10 billion he skimmed from the U.N.'s Oil-for-Food program to bankroll Osama bin Laden's al-Qaida terrorist network, including the plot to attack America on Sept. 11, 2001.

That's the scenario outlined by the Oil-for-Food reporter of record, Claudia Rosett, who laid out the evidence for a U.N.-Saddam-9/11 connection in this week's Weekly Standard.

Story Continues Below



Rosett begins by noting that, according to the 9/11 Commission report, after bin Laden was kicked out of Sudan in 1996 he arrived in Afghanistan "pretty much bankrupt."
"His family inheritance was gone, his allowance had been cut off, and Sudan had confiscated his local assets."

Yet, just two years later, the al-Qaida terror chief was back on his feet financially - and issuing fatwahs against the U.S. that urged "death to Americans." Suddenly he had the cash to begin financing terror plots against U.S. embassies in East Africa, the attack on the USS Cole and the 9/11 plot itself.

Where did the al-Qaida mastermind get the financial wherewithal for such extensive operations?

Notes Rosett, in his February 1998 fatwa against the U.S., bin Laden railed against "the Americans' continuing aggression against the Iraqi people" as well as "the great devastation inflicted on the Iraqi people by the crusader-Zionist alliance."

He also slammed U.S. sanctions against Iraq, calling them "the protracted blockade imposed after the ferocious war."

According to the 9/11 Commission, a month after bin Laden's fatwa declaration of war on America, two al-Qaida members visited Baghdad. And in July 1998, "an Iraqi delegation traveled to Afghanistan to meet first with the Taliban and then with bin Laden."

The Commission doesn't have much to say about how bin Laden financed 9/11, except to cite unnamed Gulf states as possible facilitators and then conclude, "To date, we have not been able to determine the origin of the money used for the 9/11 attack."

But Rosett makes a compelling case that bin Laden had his financial problems solved by Saddam, thanks to Oil-for-Food.

"From about 1998 on, Oil-for-Food became Saddam's financial network, a system he gamed to produce huge amounts of illicit income, in partnership with folks who helped him hide and spend it. ...

"Both Saddam and bin Laden ... had a taste for war. Both hated America. By the late 1990s, Saddam, despite continuing sanctions, was solidly back in business, socking away his purloined billions in secret accounts. ...

"Whatever the differences between Saddam and bin Laden, their circumstances by the late 1990s had all the makings of a deal. Pocket change for Saddam, financial security for bin Laden, and satisfaction for both – death to Americans."

The Iraqi dictator, however – pinned down by U.S. air patrols and hamstrung by U.N. weapons inspectors – had no way to attack the United States directly. Bin Laden, on the other hand, was operating under no such constraints.

Concludes Rosett:

"For such a deal, both Saddam and bin Laden had motive and opportunity. And if you read bin Laden's 1998 fatwa with just a little bit of imagination, those mentions of Iraq, at that particular moment, in those particular ways, carry a strong whiff of what is known in our own society as product placement: a message from a sponsor."



To: steve dietrich who wrote (601651)8/9/2004 10:05:45 AM
From: JakeStraw  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 769670
 
John Kerry's Resume [Be Afraid... Be VERY Afraid!]

By David Allen Jared
Aug 7, 2004

It looks like the Democrats have good reason to be afraid. Their guy, Senator John Kerry, has chosen to almost ignore his 18-year Congressional record and make his 4 months in Vietnam as the centerpiece of his resume in an effort to convince us that he should be elected President this coming November. Now come a group of men--men JUST as well-decorated, most of whom served FULL tours of duty in Vietnam and NONE of whom came home to trash their shipmates-- who served alongside Lt. Kerry in Vietnam and are now disputing his claim to the Presidency. To be sure, most dislike his politics, which are decidedly left-leaning, but most oppose his aspiration to the world's most powerful position for two primary reasons. First, they insist that Senator Kerry is NOT telling the truth about his service in Vietnam--exaggerating his self-proclaimed "heroism," disputing the stories Senator Kerry has told about how he "earned" his medals and the circumstances surrounding his departure for greener pastures.

More importantly, however, most do not think Senator Kerry is fit for the Presidency because of what he did upon his return to the United States. First, he joined (and became one of the leaders of) "Vietnam Veterans Against the War." Then, he used that association to appear before the Fulbright Committee in 1971, dressed in grubby fatigues with his ribbons affixed above the left pocket (which is NEVER done, by the way) and told horror story after horror story about how he and "thousands of other soldiers" in Vietnam routinely committed the most heinous sorts of atrocities--including rape, dismemberments and massacres of innocent civilians--none of which he ever had personal knowledge about (unless, of course, those sorts of things were what he was "confessing" to when he included himself as being guilty of war crimes.)

We later learned from now-Senator John McCain, a former Vietnam POW, that the Fulbright Committee's public testimonies were, "The most effective propaganda that the NVA had to use against the POW's at the Hanoi Hilton." Curiously, (and as an aside) Senator McCain refused to even SPEAK to Senator Kerry for several years, but they "reconciled" their differences in the early 90's and are now quite friendly. In fact, Senator McCain has now vigorously condemned the testimonies of those 250-odd Vietnam Vets who now accuse Senator Kerry of lying about his service and fitness for command as CIC, as a "dirty, reprehensible trick."

There's no "trick" here, folks. I've read every word these guys have published (and will buy their book when it comes out next month) and am convinced that they are sincere and are coming forward only now because they see the danger of allowing Senator Kerry to get himself installed as President and Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces. They don't believe he's fit to be President (and neither do I.) They say that as long as he was merely a Senator, he couldn't do much damage, so it didn't matter but, as President, he could do enormous damage to the military that these men honorably served.

The next day after all this hit the news programs (those that chose to even run it), a Boston Globe reporter reported that one of the men who'd signed a sworn affidavit and testified in a TV ad run by the group had told him (the reporter) that he (the veteran) had made a bad mistake and now recanted his story critical of Senator Kerry. THAT story hit ALL the news programs. Then, around noon that same day, the ex-officer in question said that the reporter's story was dead wrong and that not only did he stand by his sworn statement, but he wanted the critical ad to continue to be run. Then it emerged that the Globe reporter, in fact, had been HIRED by the Kerry/Edwards campaign to write part of their campaign brochure--even while still "reporting" on the race. It appears that the Kerry campaign is in a panic over this group of 250+ veterans, many of whom served with him in Vietnam, telling a different story than the one the campaign wants us all to hear. They (the Kerry Campaign) have resorted to sending out threatening letters to the TV stations in the so-called "battleground States" telling them, in essence, that if the stations run the ad, they would be sued.

This "Champion of the People," this "protector of the Constitutional right of free speech" is pulling out all the stops to see that these heroic men are not heard. In my opinion, they are TWICE heroes. Once for their heroic service in Vietnam (for which they were reviled by Senator Kerry and his pals of the time) and again now that they've chosen to end their decades-long silence to tell the truth about Senator Kerry's "unfitness to command," for they have absolutely NOTHING to gain, and everything to lose by doing so. The Democrat smear machine is already gearing up to dig up the dirt on these guys and has accused them of being directed by the White House (on absolutely NO evidence, by the way.) The "evidence" they (the Democrats) claim to have is that a substantial donation was made to help them produce and distribute their TV ad by a Texas man who also supported President Bush's reelection campaign. I suppose they think we're stupid enough to believe that a Democrat donor would ever donate to these guys in their efforts to tell the truth about Senator Kerry's resume. Just as Mr. Soros has not given a single penny to any Republican, but millions to Democrat organizations, why would anyone with an ounce of common sense think that he (or any other Bush-hater) would donate to the campaign of Swiftboats for Truth?

Yes, Democrats SHOULD be afraid. This story has the potential (on several levels) to sink Senator Kerry's nascient Presidential bid once and for all. It's showing him to be a hypocrit and a liar (or at least someone guilty of gross exaggerations.) After the 8 years of the Clinton regime we need another one like that like we need a hole in the head.