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 : The Supreme Court, All Right or All Wrong? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: CYBERKEN who wrote (681)	8/30/2005 2:31:53 PM
From: paret	Respond to of 3029

CLINTON'S THE MAN! New York Press ^ \| 20 August 2005 \| Russel Smith There was a time, not so long ago, that the thought of reading one more obsequious profile of Bill Clinton was so abhorrent that I'd gladly sit through three consecutive screenings of an Adam Sandler movie instead. However, the media's mass thumb-sucking on Cindy Sheehan's antics at "Camp Casey" in the past two weeks left me actually savoring every word of Jennifer Senior's Aug. 22 New York article about her African trip with Clinton as a prescribed balm from the likes of Maureen Dowd, Eleanor Clift and, need you ask, Frank Rich. Mind you, this odd occurrence must be understood in context. Senior's mash note to the man she claims "is still adored abroad" and "still considered president by the nation's estranged, bluer half" is indeed rough sledding, but since Clinton doesn't really matter anymore (unless he screws up Hillary's presidential campaign), it's the political equivalent of reading about Jennifer Aniston's hairdo or watching Katie Couric make a fool of herself each weekday morning. The star-struck Senior recounts an evening with Bill in Mozambique—she's delighted that the alleged leader of the free world gave her "shoulder a squeeze"—in which the atmosphere was richer, and just as nauseating, as a triple-scoop "cookie dough" ice cream cone. She coos: "He's a furious chatterer; talking in uninterrupted spurts; interjections are difficult, rejoinders impossible. His unscripted conversation is a combination of highbrow and bawdy, shrewd and reassuringly profane." Why profanity is "reassuring" is beyond me—maybe that's a silly dig at perceptions of George W. Bush—but perhaps the writer was afraid that Clinton's weird if calculated buddy routine with the president's father had neutered his Arkansan roots. Watching Bill work a crowd in Zanzibar, Senior makes the following observation: "One gets a perspective now that Ken Starr's cloying legion of moralists could never fully appreciate: To Clinton, the world's a seascape of temptations." Marc Rich and Sandy Berger, of course, acted on many temptations as well, but there's no need to revisit those old chestnuts.

To: CYBERKEN who wrote (681)	8/31/2005 7:15:10 AM
From: paret	Respond to of 3029

Washington Post Supports our Enemies ............................................ Why Does Our Media Support Our Enemies? theOneRepublic.com ^ \| 8/31/05 \| Noel Sheppard A front-page story concerning Iran in last Tuesday’s Washington Post was clearly intended to thwart American efforts preventing that country from obtaining nuclear weapons, as well as to embarrass the Bush administration with more implications of faulty intelligence. In an article entitled “No Proof Found of Iran Arms Program”, Dafna Linzer states: Traces of bomb-grade uranium found two years ago in Iran came from contaminated Pakistani equipment and are not evidence of a clandestine nuclear weapons program, a group of U.S. government experts and other international scientists has determined. "The biggest smoking gun that everyone was waving is now eliminated with these conclusions," said a senior official who discussed the still-confidential findings on the condition of anonymity. Dontcha just love it when media outlets quote unnamed sources in stories with such vast global implications? Oftentimes, as in this instance, such vague references result in the article being so loosely based in verifiable facts that it is tough to take it seriously. For example, the “findings” cited in this story come from a group of scientists that has been working in secret for the past nine months under the direction of the United Nations’ International Atomic Energy Agency -- you know, that group that did such a fabulous job of monitoring Iraq and North Korea’s weapons programs, and has consistently demonstrated itself to be a fabulous ally of ours. Moreover, the final report of this top-secret group of scientists isn’t due to be presented to the IAEA and its chief, Mohamed ElBaradei -- you know, that guy that has done such a fabulous job of running this nuclear watchdog agency, and has consistently demonstrated himself as being a fabulous ally of ours -- until September 3. With that in mind, it is truly fascinating the size of the hairs the press is trying to split to make the case that Iran isn’t trying to split any atoms. For instance, the premise of this article -- along with all others like it on Tuesday -- is that if this nuclear material in question can be linked back to uranium-contaminated equipment that had been brought from Pakistan years ago, it proves that Iran is not trying to develop a nuclear program. Excuse me? It has been known for some time -- even by the illustrious IAEA -- that Iran began its nuclear work almost two decades ago with the help of Pakistani nuclear black-marketer A. Q. Khan. As such, it should come as no surprise -- even to the illustrious IAEA -- that any of Iran’s nuclear equipment could be somehow linked back to Pakistan. In fact, the conclusion that this proves Iran is not trying to develop a nuclear program is thoroughly specious. After all, countries that were purchasing nuclear equipment and information from A. Q. Khan were doing so specifically to establish a nuclear program of their own. If they weren’t, why would they spend so much money on such things? Yet, irrespective of the lack of any logical foundation, the press can’t be stopped from wasting such a fine opportunity to impugn the Bush administration: The IAEA had put together the group of experts in an effort to foster cooperation but also to eliminate the possibility that its findings would be challenged by the White House, officials said. In the run-up to the Iraq invasion in March 2003, the White House rejected IAEA findings that cast doubt on U.S. assertions about then-Iraqi President Saddam Hussein's arsenal. The IAEA findings turned out to be correct, and no weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq. Nice prose, but not altogether accurate, is it? After all, evidence of Iraqi WMDs presented by the administration to the U.N. before the March 2003 invasion came in part from information obtained by U.N. weapons inspectors. As a result, suggesting that the U.N. was correct concerning Iraq not having WMDs is erroneous regardless of this assertion having become a rallying cry of the left. Additionally, as is also regularly ignored by the press, the absence of WMD discoveries in Iraq up to this point does not abrogate the fact that international intelligence agencies across the globe for more than a decade reported that these weapons existed, nor does it discount anecdotal evidence suggesting that in the months leading up to the invasion, Saddam moved these weapons to other nations. But presenting such alternative explanations to the public isn’t the charge of the mainstream media, is it? Instead, the goal here is to, once again, embarrass the administration enough to prevent it from having any hand in monitoring the nuclear activities of Iran, and, instead, place this responsibility squarely in the lap of the U.N. and the IAEA who have made it clear that they would welcome such an outcome. In fact, the Washington Post doesn’t appear to be hiding this from its readers when it states that the intent on the IAEA’s part in creating this clandestine operation was to “eliminate the possibility that its findings would be challenged by the White House.” Wow! Is this a concept that America and its citizens should welcome: an international organization researching sensitive information about our enemies with our tax dollars whose conclusions are unchallengeable by our leaders? Of course, this should not come as a surprise to most Americans, for the left and their press -- regardless of all the evidence of corruption and malfeasance at the core of the United Nations -- still trusts this international body to defend America’s interests more than it does the Bush administration. How sad.