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: DizzyG who wrote (616143)	9/1/2004 5:41:27 PM
From: Emile Vidrine	Respond to of 769670

FBI seizes computer from AIPAC offices By JANINE ZACHARIA NEW YORK FBI agents on Friday copied the computer hard drive of a senior staffer at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee who has been questioned in relation to the case of a Pentagon official suspected of turning over a classified document either directly to Israel, or via the pro-Israel lobby group. Sources in Washington said the hard drive was that of Steve Rosen, AIPAC's director of foreign policy issues. It was not clear if FBI agents also seized other materials from Rosen's office. AIPAC says it is cooperating fully with the FBI's investigation. Government lawyers, according to Tuesday's New York Times, are preparing to make the first arrests in the case by issuing a criminal complaint against one or more figures who are said to be involved. The case is being handled by federal prosecutors in Virginia. But experts suggested that the rush to file a complaint could be a sign that the charge will be less severe than that of espionage, as was originally reported. "The fact that they're going to file a complaint instead of an indictment is an indication of the weakness of their case," said one criminal defense expert. A criminal complaint would allow the government to proceed with arrests more quickly. AIPAC and Israel have denied any wrongdoing in a case that has become increasingly muddled since CBS News reported on Friday that the FBI was about to arrest an Israeli mole in the Pentagon. Investigators suspect that a mid-level Pentagon staffer, Larry Franklin, provided either AIPAC or Israel with a secret draft of an internal planning document on US policy toward Iran. Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz and Undersecretary of Defense Douglas Feith have been briefed on the case, as have officials at the White House, State Department, and congressional leaders. Congressional leaders continued on Tuesday to rally around AIPAC, whose image, many in the pro-Israel community fear, has been tarnished by accusations of wrongdoing. "AIPAC has worked hard to build its credibility with members of Congress on both sides of the aisle," House Majority Whip Roy Blunt of Missouri said. "While the House will want to look carefully at any allegations that might endanger our national security, it will begin that look with a record of great confidence in our relationship with AIPAC and our strongest ally and the only democracy in the Middle East, Israel." The House Democratic Whip, Steny Hoyer (D-Maryland) also expressed confidence in AIPAC. "I have worked with AIPAC for many years. They are a very successful, strong, and committed organization and do a tremendous job advocating for the important US-Israel relationship." Despite those voices of confidence, some in Washington said they expected that US officials would be reluctant to meet with AIPAC staffers, at least in the immediate short-term, now that there is a suspicion that AIPAC is being monitored by the FBI. "The biggest implication, is that mid-level officials will not be meeting with AIPAC. They don't want to be seen with them," said one Washington lobbyist. jpost.com

To: DizzyG who wrote (616143)	9/1/2004 6:17:51 PM
From: Thomas A Watson	Respond to of 769670

Explaining one more Edwards idiot identification event cue. John Edwards: Disrespecting Our Allies America isn't acting alone. by Gary Schmitt 09/01/2004 3:30:00 PM ON MONDAY, speaking in Wilmington, North Carolina, Democratic vice presidential candidate John Edwards gave a major foreign policy address that insulted America's allies in the war on terror, and suggested giving France and Germany a virtual veto over American security policy. Edwards's core point is that the Bush administration's approach to terror has meant that "we must face these new challenges alone." But Edwards ignores facts past and present. NATO is in Afghanistan, and is expanding its role. NATO is involved in training Iraqi military and police. NATO has assisted the Polish military contingent in Iraq with command support. Our two most important allies in the world, Great Britain and Japan, have troops in Iraq, along with numerous other allied states, such as Denmark, Poland, Italy, and South Korea. Moreover, virtually all of our allies are assisting in the Bush administration's Proliferation Security Initiative, a groundbreaking effort to stop weapons proliferation traffic on the high seas and through the air. What are our coalition partners to think when Edwards ignores those contributions and describes our effort as being done "without strong allies"? The truth is, given the profound and dramatic change the Bush administration has made in the security agenda of the world's democracies since 9/11, its record of getting allies on board that agenda has been strikingly successful. Of course, what Edwards really has in mind is that neither France nor Germany has been supportive of America's Iraq policy. Yet, as numerous post-war diplomatic studies have made clear, neither Paris nor Berlin was ever going to agree to the Iraq war. Either Edwards doesn't understand current realities, or he is willing to let France and Germany exercise a veto on decisions affecting American security. No administration wants to go it alone. But the approach outlined by Edwards suggests a style of statecraft that would put a premium on unanimity over decisiveness and, in the name of working with all potential allies, forestall making the hard decisions required if the war on terror is going to be waged successfully. But perhaps winning the war is not uppermost in Edwards's mind. One of the most striking statements in the Edwards speech is the reason he gives for wanting allied help in Iraq. "With a new president, we will earn the respect of our allies. We will ask more from them to ease the burdens on our troops so they can come home." Sorry, but how do you earn the respect of our allies, if the point of asking them to do more is so that you can bring your own troops home? Gary Schmitt is executive director of the Project for The New American Century. weeklystandard.com