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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: American Spirit who wrote (258818)	11/7/2005 3:52:49 PM
From: JakeStraw	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 1573092

Democrats Continue To Put Self Before Nation Joe Bell The Democrats continue to waste the nation’s time as they labor feverishly to convince someone besides themselves that President Bush tricked the nation into removing Saddam Hussein from power. They persist in alleging no weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq and on November 1 pushed the Senate into a closed session. House Minority Whip Richard Durbin, D-Ill., said members of his party wanted to complete an inquiry about whether the Bush Administration distorted information to validate the war. Durbin said the session “is to finally give the truth to at least the members of the Senate…” The Democrat’s incessant droning about Bush distorting intelligence and WMD call into question their interest in the truth. Repetition will never turn their fiction into fact. In his book, “Disinformation,” Richard Miniter shares the truth with anyone willing to listen. For example, in June 2004, U.S. forces in Iraq seized 1.77 metric tons of enriched uranium that could have been used to make an atomic bomb. Miniter also wrote about Polish general Marek Dukaczewski, who received information from Iraqis about chemical weapons being sold on the black market. “Polish military officials bought seventeen chemical weapons warheads from Iraqis for $5,000 apiece,” Miniter wrote, “to keep them from Iraq’s so-called insurgents. …Tests confirmed that some of the warheads contained cyclosarin, a nerve gas five times more powerful than sarin. These chemical weapons were supposed to have been completely destroyed during the 1991-1998 UN inspection regime.” Other sources provide the truth that Democrats claim they seek. On October 2, 2003, Dr. David Kay, head of the Iraq Survey Group, told the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence that his group found WMD in Iraq. Kay said, “We have discovered dozens of WMD-related program activities and significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the United Nations during the inspections that began in late 2002. The discovery of these deliberate concealment efforts have come about both through the admissions of Iraqi scientists and officials concerning information they deliberately withheld and through physical evidence of equipment and activities that ISG has discovered that should have been declared to the UN.” Kay said their findings included, “A clandestine network of laboratories and safehouses within the Iraqi Intelligence Service that contained equipment subject to UN monitoring and suitable for continuing CBW research … reference strains of biological organisms concealed in a scientist’s home, one of which can be used to produce biological weapons, new research on BW-applicable agents … continuing work on ricin and aflatoxin were not declared to the UN … a line of UAVs not fully declared at an undeclared production facility and an admission that they had tested one of their declared UAVs out to a range of 500 km, 350 km beyond the permissible limit … continuing covert capability to manufacture fuel propellant useful only for prohibited SCUD variant missiles, a capability that was maintained at least until the end of 2001 and that cooperating Iraqi scientists have said they were told to conceal from the UN … plans and advanced design work for new long-range missiles with ranges up to at least 1000 km - well beyond the 150 km range limit imposed by the UN.” It gets tiresome having to correct Democrat deceptions but it is necessary because of their relentless repetition of untruths. A CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll taken October 28 to 30, 2005, asked if people thought it was a mistake for America to send troops to Iraq. Fifty-four percent of the respondents said “Yes,” 45 percent said “No,” and 1 percent said they were “Unsure.” This is understandable given that the mainstream media and the Democrats have fed the public a steady diet of duplicity, despair and disaster with respect to Iraq. Yes, the terrorists continue to fight hard, but the Iraqis are making progress. In February, Iraqi security forces had one division headquarters, four brigades and 14 battalions; today there are two division headquarters, five brigades and 18 battalions. Almost 50 percent of the operations in the Multi-National Division North-Central sector are led by or conducted by Iraqi forces. Bush’s critics have also complained that he sent troops into battle without a declaration of war from Congress. In October 2002, Congress passed a Use of Force resolution to “authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.” But even if Congress had not passed the measure the precedent for a U.S. president sending troops into battle without congressional authority is established and prominent. In 1801 President Thomas Jefferson discussed with his cabinet the attacks Barbary pirates were perpetrating against U.S. ships and spoke of using military force to end the outrages. When it was suggested he would need Congress to pass an act of war – Congress was out of session at the time - Jefferson decided not to call for a special session. Instead he issued an order that was worded in such a way that it circumvented the need for congressional action. Jefferson wrote that the troops he was deploying had the authorization to use force to protect U.S. merchant vessels and to enforce existing treaty obligations. The first U.S. conflict in Asia also occurred without Congressional approval when President Andrew Jackson authorized U.S. troops to retaliate against Sumatran pirates that had plundered a merchant vessel. It is distressing, and disturbing, that the party of Harry Truman, John Kennedy, Zell Miller and Henry Jackson has become a threat to U.S. security. Today’s Democrats appear to care little for U.S. history or for current events. They seem more hungry for power than for truth; more interested in destroying a Republican administration than America’s enemies; more concerned about their own future than America’s. The Democrats have a proud and honorable past. They are plowing it under and paving for themselves a dishonorable present and potentially unsalvageable future. Hopefully the majority of the American voters will continue to prevent them from holding power until they can once again wield it responsibly. ### Joseph Bell has hosted a radio talk show and is a former editorial writer/columnist for several Connecticut newspapers. A former liberal Democrat, Bell has not been on the conservative side of the aisle for very long. He voted for Clinton/Gore in 1992. Abandoning the convictions that he had held and defended through adolescence and into adulthood was not easy. Sincere soul-searching and a commitment to distinguish fact from fiction compelled him to accept that liberal ideology was bankrupt.

To: American Spirit who wrote (258818)	11/7/2005 11:40:04 PM
From: Elroy	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1573092

Saddam needed to be forcibly inspected and disarmed, then preferably removed, as was being done properly before Bush invaded. How was he being removed again? And if the proper process, as you call it, hadn't succeeded in removing him from 1991 to 2001, how was it suddenly going to succeed in 2002. I don't think there was any UN plan to remove his regime from power, and thus the misery of the Iraqi people and economic destruction of the Iraqi state. We should have waited to let the UN inspectors finish their jobs. Then moved to the next step in a thorough, patient manner. Uhmmm, what next step again? He should have been removed from power in 1991 (or earlier), what was the upcoming "next step" that was going to accomplish that? I think you're rewriting history. The real issue here was not removing Saddam, but the sheer incompetence and dishonesty associated with Bush's rush to war. Both are issues. You are the only anti-Bush person that seems to support the idea of forcibly removing Saddam, so at least we're on agreement on that. As for Bush's incompetence in the planning and execution of that process, I agree. He should be ashamed of himself, and removed from power (if legally possible) for poorly executing the largest AMerican overseas operation since Vietnam. But that's one of the good things of the US system; he will be removed from power in a few years, regardless. As for the rest of your anti-Bush rant, I've told you I don't like his leadership, and I could care less about your anti-Bush rants, so give it a rest!