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 : Don't Blame Me, I Voted For Kerry -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: bentway who wrote (49346)	9/20/2004 11:04:45 AM
From: Proud_Infidel	Respond to of 81568

Annan should choose his words more carefully Knight Ridder/Tribune News Service (KRT) - The following editorial appeared in the Chicago Tribune on Friday, Sept. 17, 2004: --- Diplomats are renowned for carefully choosing their words so as not to leave the wrong impression or unnecessarily ruffle feathers. That's particularly true at the United Nations, where diplomats from all over the world practice the gossamer art of persuasion and manipulation through the muffled language of diplomacy. But U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan abandoned the pretense of diplomacy Wednesday by firing off a very undiplomatic word to describe the Bush administration's decision to free Iraq: "illegal." Goaded by a BBC interviewer, Annan said of the war: "From our point of view, from the (U.N.) charter point of view, it was illegal." Undoubtedly, legal scholars could get lathered up about what the U.N. charter says and how exactly to define the term "illegal." But that's not really the point here. Illegal is a loaded word. It implies criminality. Annan's use of the word is irresponsible and reprehensible. It illuminates nothing, nor does it help solve any of the problems in Iraq. Instead, it merely cements the U.N.'s reputation as an international debating society that sometimes talks a good game, but rarely backs it up. That should be illegal. A world compelled to wait for the U.N. to protect it from peril is not a safer world. If the U.N. had its feckless way, for instance, ethnic cleansing in Kosovo would continue unabated. Instead, President Bill Clinton and NATO bypassed the U.N. Security Council in going to war against Yugoslavia and Slobodan Milosevic in 1999. Had the U.S. not acted in Iraq, the U.N.'s threat of "serious consequences" if Saddam Hussein didn't disarm would have amounted to what almost all U.N. threats amount to - nothing. What's even more shameful is that while Annan flings intemperate words, his U.N. stands on the sidelines in Iraq's reconstruction. It blames the dangerous security situation, but Annan is doing little to convince other countries that what happens in Iraq matters to the world, not just the United States. Elsewhere, the story is much the same. The U.N. dithers helplessly over what to do about the atrocities in Sudan's province of Darfur, a situation that Secretary of State Colin Powell has described as "genocide." The Security Council has so far done little but rely on sweet talk to stop the violence there. It's not working. Maybe Annan needs a gentle reminder of what the word illegal really means. If so, he need not scan the distant horizon, but simply gaze into his own back yard, where U.N. officials should be wringing their hands furiously over what investigators are finding in a billowing corruption scandal engulfing its Oil-for-Food program. Various investigations are still peeling back the multiple schemes that allowed Hussein to siphon away billions intended to aid Iraqis. Given the U.N.'s history, Annan should choose his words more carefully. --- © 2004, Chicago Tribune. Visit the Chicago Tribune on the Internet at chicagotribune.com

To: bentway who wrote (49346)	9/20/2004 11:47:06 AM
From: Sully-	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 81568

<font color=blue>"he owed 53 months of flying"<font color=black> IZZAT so? Based on what ANG regulation? Or is that just another rumor from an unnamed source? Fact: Bush earned the minimum # of points toward his Honorable Discharge every single year he served. That is how one legally completes their ANG service time. <font color=blue> "Upon being accepted for pilot training, Bush promised to serve with his parent (Texas) Guard unit for five years once he completed his pilot training. But Bush served as a pilot with his parent unit for just two years."<font color=black> IZZAT so? based on what documentation? FWIW, the only time in question regarding Bush's TANG service is during the last two years, 1972 & 1973. The basis for the liberal media rumors & baseless allegations are so-called "gaps" in his service time. The problem with these so-called "gaps" is they were common in all branches of the NG. The major criteria necessary for an Honorable Discharge was meeting the minimum point requirements. Fact: Official records clearly establish Bush exceeded the minimum point requirements every year he served in the TANG, including 1972 & 1973. <font color=blue> "In May 1972 Bush left the Houston Guard base for Alabama. According to Air Force regulations, Bush was supposed to obtain prior authorization before leaving Texas to join a new Guard unit in Alabama. But Bush failed to get the authorization. In requesting a permanent transfer to a nonflying unit in Alabama in 1972, Bush was supposed to sign an acknowledgment that he received relocation counseling. But no such document exists."<font color=black> IZZAT so? Based on what documentation? The forged documents? So much revisionist history..... <font size=4> Fact: George Bush was NEVER assigned to the Alabama Guard. This is a myth promoted by the <font color=blue>"objective"<font color=black> media. Here is what really happened. Here is what the head of the Alabama Guard said. Turnipseed states Bush was never ordered to report to the Alabama Air National Guard. He points out that Bush never transferred from the Texas Air National Guard to the Alabama Air National Guard. He remained in the Texas Guard during his stay in Alabama. This was confirmed by the Texas Guard. And Turnipseed added that Bush was never under his command or any other officer in the Alabama Guard. Turnipseed added that Bush was informed of the drill schedule of the Alabama Guard as a courtesy so he could get credit for drills while in Alabama for his service record in the Texas Guard. There was no compulsory attendance. This was also confirmed by the Texas Guard. This was reported in the Chicago Sun-Times and has never been picked up by any other news organization. <font size=3> <font color=blue> "He was supposed to receive a certification of satisfactory participation from his unit. But Bush did not. **He was supposed to sign and give a letter of resignation to his Texas unit commander. But Bush did not."<font color=black> Fact: Read the response to the previous baseless allegations. He never transferred out of TANG. And there are no unsatisfactory appraisals in Bush's TANG files. He met or exceeded each time he was appraised & received an Honorable Discharge. These are also baseless allegations that play well with uninformed civilians who believe with their hearts, not their heads (or the facts). I'm not goint to refute your list of baseless, trumped up allegations. Debunking every single one off the top makes it more than obvious your list is just a wish list of revisionist history, baseless allegations, lies & deceit. Please read the following & get your "facts" straight........ <font size=4> Bush Guard Service, The True Story<font size=3> Message 20497774 <font size=4>Bush’s National Guard years Before you fall for Dems’ spin, here are the facts Message 20502721 <font size=4> Kerry Campaign Echoes Bush Desertion Charge? Did Kerry really say these things about his fellow troops?<font size=3> Message 19756160 <font size=4> Was Bush "AWOL"? You can follow the links on this one if you doubt him.<font size=3> Hobbs Online Blog Message 19647054 <font size=4> No "There There" To The Bush AWOL Charge<font size=3> Message 19773459 <font size=4> Bush Guard Commander Recants AWOL Charge<font size=3> Message 19780959 <font size=4> 'Bush and I were lieutenants' <font size=3> Message 19798092 <font size=4> Media failed to find facts behind Bush's service record <font size=3> Message 19798180 <font size=4> Doubts raised on Bush accuser Key witness disputes charge by Guard retiree that files were purged<font size=3> Message 19807018 <font size=4> Ex-Guardsman Says Bush Served in Ala.<font size=3> Message 19807119 <font size=4> BUSH'S GUARD 'ACCUSER' ADMITS FAULTY MEMORY <font size=3> Message 19811538 <font size=4> Bush in Alabama <font size=3> Message 20507295 <font size=4> An Officer Weighs In<font size=3> Message 20507671

To: bentway who wrote (49346)	9/20/2004 11:54:37 AM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 81568

Roger Simon September 20, 2004 <font size=4>Lies My Newspaper Told Me The minute I see a journalist using unnamed sources, I know there's a good chance I'm being lied to, often big time. In this post Rathergate world anyone who believes such reporting should have what's left of his or her head examined. A case in point this morning is the ever-popular Robert Novak who is informing us a Quick exit from Iraq is likely. <font color=blue> Inside the Bush administration policymaking apparatus, there is strong feeling that U.S. troops must leave Iraq next year. This determination is not predicated on success in implanting Iraqi democracy and internal stability. Rather, the officials are saying: Ready or not, here we go. This prospective policy is based on Iraq's national elections in late January, but not predicated on ending the insurgency or reaching a national political settlement. Getting out of Iraq would end the neoconservative dream of building democracy in the Arab world. The United States would be content having saved the world from Saddam Hussein's quest for weapons of mass destruction. <font color=black> Note the use of weasel words like <font color=blue>"strong feeling."<font color=black> Whose strong feeling Novak isn't saying. He almost never does. He's not a journalist. He's a disinformation service.<font size=3> rogerlsimon.com