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 (11473)	8/22/2005 9:06:59 AM
From: sea_urchin	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20039

Rock_nj > Things are not looking good for Bush and the Republicans for 2006. That's my feeling, too. In fact, I have even considered that's why W is spending so much time riding his bike in the bundu -- they don't want him around saying stupid things which could aggravate the situation. I suppose you've noticed that they have been quietly changing key personnel as it's become clear the neocon policy has been disastrous. washingtonpost.com >>Gone are Paul D. Wolfowitz, the Pentagon's previous number two civilian, and Douglas J. Feith, the former policy chief -- both prominent neoconservative figures who helped craft the administration's approach to Iraq and who became public targets for critics of the invasion and decisions affecting its aftermath. After four years in which the Pentagon often found itself enmeshed in controversy over such issues as the use of a preemptive strike, the quality of prewar intelligence and the treatment of detainees, the new team members by contrast have drawn little political fire as they transition into their new jobs.<< > Perhaps we'll get an oppotunity to see what the modern Democratic party is made of, as it seems possible that they will retake control of the U.S. House of Representatives in next year's election That's, of course, if the Diebold voting machines allow it? But quite apart from the foreign policy debacle of the present administration, I would have thought that this picture alone would have swung public opinion? rense.com BTW, I'm sure you've already gathered that I'm not lover of either the Democratic Party or the new Republican Party which, in my opinion, does not stand for any of the values of the original American Republic. If I'm "anything", I would describe myself as an old-fashioned conservative / libertarian. But, giving the devil his due, Clinton at least got the economy right.

To: Rock_nj who wrote (11473)	8/24/2005 7:52:41 AM
From: sea_urchin	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 20039

Rock_nj > Perhaps we'll get an oppotunity to see what the modern Democratic party is made of, as it seems possible that they will retake control of the U.S. House of Representatives in next year's election. According to this writer, who quite clearly is anti-war, things aren't looking good for the Democrats as the party has been split between pro-war and anti-war factions. antiwar.com >>Cindy Sheehan is exactly what we needed. Following the 2004 elections, the antiwar movement was left in shambles, unable to recover from the malfunctions of the Democratic Party. MoveOn.org had capitulated its antiwar position by supporting John pro-war Kerry. United for Peace and Justice did not organize a single rally against the Iraq occupation. Indeed, the "Anybody but Bush" epidemic had crushed whatever movement there was to begin with. But now the war opposition is coming back to life. The floodgates are open. Bush's approval rating has taken a nose dive into the 30 percent range. George W. Bush is not a popular president. As I write, the White House PR machine is putting together a series of speeches for Bush to give over the course of the next month – where he'll be calling for more public support for the nonsensical war. Aides to the president say he'll be drawing parallels between Iraq and WWII. Apparently victory takes some time. Well, over 1,800 U.S. troops have died in the conflict thus far. Surely thousands more will perish as the illegal occupation continues. The war's defenders are having a difficult time rationalizing their support. As this newly invigorated opposition to the Iraq war comes to a head with media-savvy Sheehan at the helm, one would assume the Democratic Party would find its voice. What do they have to lose? Certainly not elections. And certainly not their own popularity. They have none. Even with Bush down in the polls, the Democrats are not able to capitalize. They have not added an ounce to the antiwar campaign other than a few laughable gestures concerning the Downing Street memos. Other than that, they have been completely silent. Pathetic, in fact. Save Senator Russ Feingold, who is now calling for a mediocre withdrawal plan. But even Russ' half-assed call to withdrawal troops by December 2006 is being challenged within the Democratic establishment by the liberal warmongers. Antiwar Howard Dean, the restless chair of the DNC, says it is the responsibility of the Bush administration to come up with an exit strategy, not the Democrats. Talk about the inability to offer an alternative. What makes Dean believe Bush could ever provide any reasonable … anything? Let alone an exit policy? Dean's tangled jargon is just another case of the Democrats' inability to be a legitimate opposition party. Sens. Hillary Clinton and John Kerry, two prominent Democrats in the race for the White House in 2008, aren't having any of Feingold either. Stay the course, they say. Whatever the hell that means. Stay the course of what? Have they forgotten that there is no goal? No plan? No course? What we do know, however, is that thousands more troops and civilians are sure to die as the U.S. continues to occupy Iraq. Fortunately, the grassroots of the Democratic Party do not agree with Kerry and Clinton. They want the troops out of Iraq. Many claim that this rift between the party grassroots and the D.C. Democrats is a fundamental identity crisis. They see the party as having no legitimate direction. No heart. No soul. They are right. If Democratic politicians had a soul, they'd be standing shoulder to shoulder with Sheehan's supporters at candlelight vigils across the country. But that won't be happening anytime soon. The Democrats in D.C. aren't even sure Sheehan's actions are justified. They aren't even sure that her son died for an unjust cause. The futility of the Democrats in Washington grows graver by the day.<< This is view endorsed by pro-right Pat Buchanan. antiwar.com >>Even in unpopular wars, the antiwar party is not necessarily the most rewarding place to be – politically speaking. << It seems to me, as an anti-war, anti-Bush outsider, that the Democrats have a long way to go to get their act together before they can consider being either a real alternative to the war party or a committed anti-war party. While the pro-war-anti-war flip-flop within the party continues, the dilemma of the voters can only increase -- to the satisfaction of the Republicans and the establishment.