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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: i-node who wrote (201487)	9/11/2004 3:56:04 PM
From: Yousef	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574096

David, Re: "Pathetic ..." Taking Flip-Flops Seriously "I said at the time I would have preferred if we had given diplomacy a greater opportunity, but I think it was the right decision to disarm Saddam Hussein. And when the president made the decision, I supported him, and I support the fact that we did disarm him. John F. Kerry, May 3, 2003 Those who doubted whether Iraq or the world would be better off without Saddam Hussein, and those who believe that we are not safer with his capture, don't have the judgment to be president or the credibility to be elected president. December 16, 2003 Yes, I would have voted for the authority. I believe it's the right authority for a president to have. But I would have used that authority as I have said throughout this campaign, effectively. August 9, 2004 Iraq was "the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time." September 6, 2004 ===================================================================== We should not send more American troops. That would be the worst thing. John F. Kerry, September 4, 2003 If it requires more troops . . . that's what you have to do. April 18, 2004 I will have significant, enormous reduction in the level of troops. August 1, 2004 We're going to get our troops home where they belong. August 6, 2004 ===================================================================== We should increase funding [for the war in Iraq] by whatever number of billions of dollars it takes to win. John F. Kerry, August 31, 2003 $200 billion [for Iraq] that we're not investing in education and health care, and job creation here at home. . . . That's the wrong choice. September 8, 2004 Make It So, Yousef

To: i-node who wrote (201487)	9/12/2004 4:42:18 AM
From: tejek	Respond to of 1574096

Pathetic No, this is pathetic: ********************************************** New blow to Blair over Iraq Report concludes no WMD as PM completes reshuffle Michael White, Patrick Wintour and Kevin Maguire Friday September 10, 2004 The Guardian Tony Blair will be confronted with a fresh challenge over Iraq within the next two weeks when the long-awaited final report of the Iraq Survey Group concludes there were no weapons of mass destruction in the country at the time of the US-UK invasion. The Guardian has learned that the team of weapons inspectors sent in by Washington and London at the end of the war to comb Iraq will find that though the threat of Saddam Hussein was real, there were no stockpiles. The absence of banned weapons has long been suspected, but the finality of the report's conclusion, together with its timing on the eve of the Labour party conference in Brighton, will be controversial. It may encourage Labour critics who want a show of repentance from Mr Blair and a promise of no more pre-emptive wars to be more vocal. The prime minister had hoped to focus the conference on domestic issues. The news of the latest Iraq threat to Mr Blair's political leadership came as he completed a reshuffle designed to shore up his embattled premiership. Alan Milburn, the new policy supremo, attended the week's cabinet and urged his colleagues to "pull together". Although it has been obvious since last year that the Iraq Survey Group was unlikely to unearth anything, its final verdict is an embarrassment to President Bush and Mr Blair. Before the invasion, both governments claimed Saddam had a covert programme to produce chemical and biological weapons, to manufacture ballistic missiles and had renewed its search for a nuclear bomb. Mr Blair did, however, soften his stance in July, telling MPs: "I have to accept that we have not found them and that we may not find them." The prime minister also faces other looming difficulties which could further rock his political stability through the autumn. They include: · Hunting. The latest compromise - a total ban but preceded by a two-year delay - was designed in part to assuage Labour backbenchers worried about government drift. But critics of the hunting bill have been incensed by the timeframe and are threatening to tear the legislation apart. Since the pro-hunting peers are also determined to wreck the compromise, No 10 may be back to square one. · TUC conference. Mr Blair faces persistent resentment and a potentially hostile reception from the TUC next week when he speaks in Brighton. The leader of the Transport and General Workers' Union today launches an attack on "politicians squabbling like ferrets in a sack" and warns that a fragile truce between government and unions would be shattered if manifesto promises are broken. In today's Guardian, Tony Woodley, the union's general secretary, warns the prime minister that the reform package agreed at July's party policy forum meeting in Warwick is an inviolable base line. "It is one of the unfortunate weaknesses in the way 'new Labour' does its business that whenever unity appears to be breaking out in the party, division and discord is stirred up again," he writes. Five days of clashes at the top of government have left critics of Mr Blair inside the party emboldened. Some prominent backbench figures say if the prime minister makes one more serious misjudgment, they will trigger a challenge to his leadership. In the short term, Mr Blair's hand has been strengthened by a reshuffle that saw the return of his key ally, Mr Milburn, the former health secretary, to run the coming election campaign in place of Gordon Brown. Yesterday the prime minister went further when he plucked the 36-year-old highflyer Ruth Kelly from the chancellor's Treasury team to be Mr Milburn's deputy. Touring the TV and radio studios, Mr Milburn dismissed suggestions that Mr Brown is being sidelined as "complete nonsense". This did not disguise bitterness in the Brown camp over the apparent reduction of his election campaign role. "When I hear people saying that somebody who is such a towering figure as Gordon - who has played such a big part in this government and its achievements - isn't going to have a key role in this general election campaign, that is cloud-cuckoo land," Mr Milburn insisted. The return of Mr Milburn has undoubtedly upset the chancellor's camp, though one official played this down yesterday. "If Gordon is being excluded and is not playing the same role as in the last two big victories, we will shrug our shoulders and get on with the job," he said. Ten junior posts swapped hands yesterday without a sacking. Douglas Alexander, a Brown protege who gave up the honorific title Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to Mr Milburn, also lost his Cabinet Office job working on policy to Ms Kelly.He takes Mike O'Brien's trade brief at the Foreign Office while Stephen Timms moves back to the Treasury in Ms Kelly's old job, financial secretary, and Mr O'Brien gets Mr Timms' post of energy minister. guardian.co.uk