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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: LindyBill who wrote (96523)	1/24/2005 6:31:44 AM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793597

The Torch of Freedom Has Passed To Conservatives By David Horowitz FrontPageMagazine.com \| January 24, 2005 The President sounded a clarion call for freedom in his second inaugural address. Its sentiments were based on an assessment of the world we live in that should be obvious. Modern technologies of destruction are accessible to all governments and exclusively to governments (because they are so expensive and require sophisticated capabilities to produce). Modern terrorism requires a base for ambitious operations that only nation-states can provide. Hence, an impoverished wasteland like Afghanistan can wreak incalculable devastation on the United States. Hence, "the best hope for peace in our world, is the expansion of freedom in all the world," which is the line from the President's speech the White House is highlighting above all others. Consider if Al Gore had been President on 9/11 and not George Bush. Suppose Gore had adopted the response of the Clinton administration to terrorists attacks, had not declared war, and had not invaded Afghanistan in a pre-emptive strike? Suppose Osama bin Laden had been able to mount a second and third major terrorist attack in the months following 9/11. Instead of the $600 billion that was taken out of the American economy, the figure might have been many times that. Confidence might have been so shattered that a full scale economic collapse would have followed, taking down the global economy along with it. It is not too fanciful to imagine civil wars and coup d'etats following in the wake of such an economic disaster. It is not far-fetched to think that a nuclear power like Pakistan might fall into radical Islamist hands. Two paths define our future: chaos, tyranny and terror, or expanding freedom and prosperity based on free markets and free men. It will probably not be one or the other. There is no steady path to progress, and there will never be a world without tyranny and conflict. But our course must be to strengthen the one and combat the other. Thus encouraging the Muslim world, and particularly the Arab Muslim world, which is the heart of the global terrorist threat -- to adopt democratic ways and to shine the light of liberty into its culture of medieval darkness is a pragmatic necessity for the future security of the civilized world. That is the reality behind the President's address. Only people in serious denial can be blind to this fact. Only liberals. The president sounded a clarion call for freedom and liberals carped. That was their virtually universal response to an inaugural that ranks among the most inspirational speeches ever devlivered by an American president. The totalitarian Left -- the Left that calls itself progressive and identifies its totalitarian goals with the seductive phrase "social justice" -- hated the speech (naturally), along the man who gave it. "The worst president ever" was one of the milder slogans on a sign in the crowd that gathered along Pennsylvania Avenue to trumpet their hate towards the inaugural parade. But there was hardly a liberal organ in the nation -- from the New York Times to the Washington Post -- that did not find something to wring its hands about in the president's speech. It was a Rohrshach moment. This was a self-revelation, a testament to the reactionary force that liberalism has become. The torch of freedom has passed, as President Kennedy said in his own summons to his countrymen to stand up for what is right. But it has passed not to a nation united, as Kennedy fervently wished, but to the conservative vanguard that still takes the Founding spirit of the nation seriously, still rings its Liberty Bell, and is prepared to stay the course of the mission that inspired its birth. Here in so many words, is this truth of Inaugural Day 2004 encapsulated in a report by the unsympathetic Los Angeles Times: "On Thursday, Bush proclaimed in his inaugural address that the central purpose of his second term would be the promotion of democracy 'in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world' -- a quintessential neoconservative goal." The defense of freedom, the advance of liberty -- this is the agenda of "neo-conservatism." Who then are the conservatives? Who are the reactionaries who would preserve the status quo of tyrannies and repressive regimes like those of the Taliban and Saddam Hussein? Who in America stands opposed to the vision of freedom the President voiced? The answer lies in the response to the President's words, which merely echo their cumulative response to the President's deeds. Today's reactionaries are those who call themselves liberals and progressives, and who fill the ranks of the anti-Bush Left.

To: LindyBill who wrote (96523)	1/24/2005 9:33:43 AM
From: JDN	Respond to of 793597

The United States, and the Bush administration in particular, engineered the demonization of Hussein, Seems to me the torture, killing and raping of his people had something to do with Saddams DEMONIZATION. Hard to believe Clark EVER had ANY responsible position in the USA, the man is OBVIOUSLY DERANGED. jdn

To: LindyBill who wrote (96523)	1/24/2005 11:32:26 AM
From: Sig	Respond to of 793597

..>>any court that considers criminal charges against Saddam Hussein must have the power and the mandate to consider charges against leaders and military personnel of the U.S., Britain and the other nations that participated in the aggression against Iraq, if equal justice under law is to have meaning.>> Why I'm Willing to Defend Hussein Former Atty. Gen. Ramsey Clark explains his offer to help the deposed dictator.By Ramsey Clark >> Leave it to a lawyer to complicate matters and drum up new business. Invading Kuwait, gassing the Kurds and Shiites, and killing swamp people by draining their land is enough to hang him. Desert Storm was conducted with full approval of the UN and war still existed because Saddam never met terms of the disarmament Resolutions. But let the Iraqis proceed with the trial, find out who the real villain was that filled those hundreds of mass graves.Perhaps they dont all know yet. Sig

To: LindyBill who wrote (96523)	1/24/2005 2:01:04 PM
From: KLP	Respond to of 793597

Hitler and Ramsey Clark....Are there similarities? Both were/are deranged, and both thought they were doing the right thing. Saddam evidently thought he was doing the right thing too. Things like shredding people, dropping them off 3 or 4 story buildings, chopping them up and leaving the parts on their parents doorsteps, imprisoning kids, and killing hundreds of thousands and shoveling their bodies into mass graves. Ramsey Clark -- Friend of the Radical Left.