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 : Sioux Nation -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: techguerrilla who wrote (21090)	6/10/2005 3:33:09 PM
From: SiouxPal	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 361400

I've been a news junky longer than most here. Since I get to work out of my house I watch more news shows than you guys are able to. That's a fact. While I profess to being wrong a lot I really am not as to my at bats. I feel so strongly that we are beginning a sunami of revelations about the Bush administration that will not begin slowing down. We notice that few newsmen are reporting the facts...now. This will end. Their very existence is based on truths surfacing sooner or later. They have been intimidated to an extreme the likes of which I have never seen before. This too will be ending...soon IMO. Even Rove will not be able to cover up the indiscretions he has been party to over these past 5 years and longer. That proverbial can of worms has been opened, and it will not be put back into its original container. Sioux out. (and yes redfish I'm on the coffee so STFU :•)

To: techguerrilla who wrote (21090)	6/10/2005 4:17:54 PM
From: stockman_scott	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 361400

Did the CIA help make some "arrangements" for the 9/11 terrorists...? Message 21405630

To: techguerrilla who wrote (21090)	6/10/2005 4:51:47 PM
From: stockman_scott	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 361400

In shying away from 2002 Downing Street Memo, a timid press shirks its duty citizen-times.com The coverage, or lack of coverage, of a story regarding notes from a meeting of British intelligence officials dubbed the "Downing Street Memo'' is quite a mystery. If fact, coverage has been curiously meager, although the contents of the memo were reported in early May by the Sunday Times of London. The intervening weeks have seen the American media focus on runaway brides (Jennifer Wilbanks), runaway mouths (Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean) and a runaway Congress dominated by filibuster fights and stem cell debates. Lost at times has been the running battle going on in Iraq, and that is why the contents of the Downing Street Memo could be of import. The memo came from a gathering of top British security officials on July 23, 2002. In part it gives input from Sir Richard Dearlove, at the time leader of MI-6, essentially the British counterpart of our CIA. The most damning sections state: "(President) Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD (weapons of mass destruction). But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy...'' "... It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran...'' If accurate, that means by July 2002, the decision to go to war had been made, and was followed by months and months of heated claims of the threat Iraq presented, months and months of claims that the final decision to enter Iraq had yet to be made. The memo was printed on the brink of elections in Britain, and caused British Prime Minister Tony Blair considerable political damage. The bulk of the coverage in this country has mainly been ruminations on why the contents of the memo has been largely ignored - and that coverage has been in dribs and drabs. USA Today, the flagship newspaper of the corporation that owns the Citizen-Times, didn't mention the memo until this week. Blair visited Washington earlier this week. During a news conference, he and President Bush faced questions about the memo. Addressing the assertions raised by it, Bush said, "There's nothing farther from the truth. Both of us didn't want to use our military. It was our last option.'' The authenticity of the memo has not been debunked. A number of reasons have been cited for the dearth of coverage, including the memo's timing and the fact the case has already been made in books and news stories that the administration made a decision to strike Iraq shortly after Sept. 11, 2001. In the wake of the memo, about 90 Democratic members of the House of Representatives are demanding to know if its contents are accurate. "No need'' to respond was the official line from White House press secretary Scott McClellan. The question won't go away. Was a pre-emptive war really the last resort, or were we sold a bill of goods? The main claim for war, the threat of weapons of mass destruction, has now proven to have been an illusion. Nearly 1,700 U.S. servicemen and women now lie buried because of our involvement in Iraq, hundreds of billions of tax dollars have been expended and according to a Washington Post-ABC News poll released Wednesday, most Americans now believe the effort hasn't made us safer. That is almost certainly true in that National Guard and reserve units have been run ragged and the Army is lagging badly in recruiting - for May, it originally set a goal of 8,050 recruits. It later revised that goal to 6,700. It got about 5,000. We are left with the elephant in the living room: Did this war have to happen? Have we used lives and resources on an undertaking that wasn't necessary, when we find ourselves in a world where there are in fact enemies posing threats and battles that must be fought? It's a question a free press should not be afraid to ask. In fact it is its duty.