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 : Bush-The Mastermind behind 9/11? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Rock_nj who wrote (8152)	9/8/2004 5:01:58 PM
From: sea_urchin	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20039

Rock_nj > at least Kerry won't be surrounded by a bunch of neocons. Maybe. All depends on whether he can find a suitable window to throw them from. bbspot.com >> The 9/11 Commission's recently issued report states that neoconservative advisers to President George Bush form "a clear and present danger that must be immediately addressed." The report states that neoconservatives, including Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz, his principal deputy, represent "perhaps the greatest security threat the nation faces today, exceeding even that posed by the other two major challenges: al-Qaeda and reality television." The panel recommended that "direct action" be taken to meet this threat, "including but not limited to pushing selected neoconservatives out of a high window." The report recognized there were risks in taking the offensive against neoconservatives. "For example, if there is a swimming pool or other soft surface below the chosen window, the injuries from the fall might well be subfatal." Also, the possibility that neocons might retaliate by gulling the president into invading a third world nation "could not be ruled out," according to the report. However, panel chairperson Thomas Kean says the risks of inaction far outweigh the risks of undertaking the panel's recommendations. "There is simply no time to lose," Kean said in an interview yesterday. "I mean, have you ever talked to this guy Wolfowitz?" Kean said, circling his right ear with his forefinger in the universal gesture suggesting mental instability. Democratic presidential contender John Kerry has already embraced the panel's recommendation. "I have gathered a team of experts to offer me options for the windows we would use to dispose of the neocons," Kerry said. Kerry pledged to act on the team's recommendations "within my first hundred days in office." <<

To: Rock_nj who wrote (8152)	9/8/2004 9:24:07 PM
From: sea_urchin	Respond to of 20039

Rock_nj > There is more hope under Kerry than Bush that we might follow a more rational foreign policy. John Pilger feels that Bush may be the lesser of the two evils. informationclearinghouse.info >>Most of the US's recent wars were launched by Democratic presidents. Why expect better of Kerry? The debate between US liberals and conservatives is a fake; Bush may be the lesser evil. On 6 May last, the US House of Representatives passed a resolution which, in effect, authorised a "pre-emptive" attack on Iran. The vote was 376-3. Undeterred by the accelerating disaster in Iraq, Republicans and Democrats, wrote one commentator, "once again joined hands to assert the responsibilities of American power". Mr Kerry's flaws and limitations are evident," says the paper, "but they are put in the shade by the neoconservative agenda and catastrophic war-making of Mr Bush. This is an election in which almost the whole world will breathe a sigh of relief if the incumbent is defeated." The whole world may well breathe a sigh of relief: the Bush regime is both dangerous and universally loathed; but that is not the point. We have debated lesser evilism so often on both sides of the Atlantic that it is surely time to stop gesturing at the obvious and to examine critically a system that produces the Bushes and their Democratic shadows. For those of us who marvel at our luck in reaching mature years without having been blown to bits by the warlords of Americanism, Republican and Democrat, conservative and liberal, and for the millions all over the world who now reject the American contagion in political life, the true issue is clear. The multilateralism or "muscular internationalism" that Kerry offers in contrast to Bush's unilateralism is seen as hopeful by the terminally naive; in truth, it beckons even greater dangers. Having given the American elite its greatest disaster since Vietnam, writes the historian Gabriel Kolko, Bush "is much more likely to continue the destruction of the alliance system that is so crucial to American power. One does not have to believe the worse the better, but we have to consider candidly the foreign policy consequences of a renewal of Bush's mandate . . . As dangerous as it is, Bush's re-election may be a lesser evil." With Nato back in train under President Kerry, and the French and Germans compliant, American ambitions will proceed without the Napoleonic hindrances of the Bush gang. The real debate is neither Bush nor Kerry, but the system they exemplify; it is the decline of true democracy and the rise of the American "national security state" in Britain and other countries claiming to be democracies, in which people are sent to prison and the key thrown away and whose leaders commit capital crimes in faraway places, unhindered, and then, like the ruthless Blair, invite the thug they install to address the Labour Party conference. The real debate is the subjugation of national economies to a system which divides humanity as never before and sustains the deaths, every day, of 24,000 hungry people. The real debate is the subversion of political language and of debate itself and perhaps, in the end, our self-respect.<<