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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bill who wrote (713363)	11/15/2005 8:01:14 PM
From: MJ	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

Bill Yes forgot about that small item about Schwartz. not being an American by birth----yet he is serving in Calif. as Governor I wouldn't discount Rice as a politician--- she is one of the best known and admired women in America for her ability to tete a tete with other nations. It is rare to have a woman of her ability at the top levels. Yes George Allen, Romney, McCain and Rudy-----all to be considered. George Allen's name has also come up in Virginia----former Governor and the football connection. Is Hilary unstoppable-----can't agree on that. An election will be about a team---a Pres. and V.P.---Edwards and Kerry ended up being a not so good mix. Seemed logical but did not work----Kerry did not bring strength to the ticket and for Kerry his wife Tereasa was a liabilitiy in the election. mj

To: Bill who wrote (713363)	11/15/2005 11:27:04 PM
From: paret	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

a fact that no one in the liberal media wants to acknowledge above a whisper: doesn’t Bush deserve some measure of credit for how or why the country has not been attacked again on his watch?

To: Bill who wrote (713363)	11/15/2005 11:42:15 PM
From: paret	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

Esquire: Clinton is world's "most influential man" ..................................................... reuters.myway.com

To: Bill who wrote (713363)	11/15/2005 11:47:47 PM
From: paret	Respond to of 769670

What a pile of lefty gibberish: By E. J. Dionne Jr. Washington Post leftwing op-ed columnist Another Set of Scare Tactics Tuesday, November 15, 2005; Page A21 Mr. President, it won't work this time. With a Wall Street Journal/NBC News Poll finding 57 percent of Americans agreeing that George W. Bush "deliberately misled people to make the case for war with Iraq," the president clearly needs to tend to his credibility problems. But his partisan attacks on the administration's critics, in a Veterans Day speech last week and in Alaska yesterday, will only add to his troubles. Bush was not subtle. He said that anyone accusing his administration of having "manipulated the intelligence and misled the American people" was giving aid and comfort to the enemy. "These baseless attacks send the wrong signal to our troops and to an enemy that is questioning America's will," Bush declared last week. "As our troops fight a ruthless enemy determined to destroy our way of life, they deserve to know that their elected leaders who voted to send them to war continue to stand behind them." You wonder: Did Patrick Fitzgerald, the special counsel in the Valerie Plame leak investigation, send the wrong signal to our troops and our enemy by daring to seek the indictment of Scooter Libby on a charge of perjury and obstruction of justice? Must Americans who support our troops desist from any criticism of the use of intelligence by the administration? There is a great missing element in the argument over whether the administration manipulated the facts. Neither side wants to talk about the context in which Bush won a blank check from Congress to invade Iraq. He doesn't want us to remember that he injected the war debate into the 2002 midterm election campaign for partisan purposes, and he doesn't want to acknowledge that he used the post-Sept. 11 mood to do all he could to intimidate Democrats from raising questions more of them should have raised. The big difference between our current president and his father is that the first President Bush put off the debate over the Persian Gulf War until after the 1990 midterm elections. The result was one of most substantive and honest foreign policy debates Congress has ever seen, and a unified nation. The first President Bush was scrupulous about keeping petty partisanship out of the discussion. The current President Bush did the opposite. He pressured Congress for a vote before the 2002 election, and the war resolution passed in October. Sen. Joe Biden, a Delaware Democrat who is no dove, warned of rushing "pell-mell" into an endorsement of broad war powers for the president. The Los Angeles Times reported that Sen. Richard Durbin, an Illinois Democrat, protested in September: "We're being asked to go to war, and vote on it in a matter of days. We need an intelligence estimate before we can seriously vote." And Rep. Tom Lantos, a California Democrat, put it plainly: "This will be one of the most important decisions Congress makes in a number of years; I do not believe it should be made in the frenzy of an election year." But it was. Grand talk about liberating Iraq gave way to cheap partisan attacks. In New Mexico, Republican Steve Pearce ran an advertisement against Democrat John Arthur Smith declaring: "While Smith 'reflects' on the situation, the possibility of a mushroom cloud hovering over a U.S. city still remains." Note that Smith wasn't being attacked for opposing the war, only for reflecting on it. God forbid that any Democrat dare even think before going to war. Marc Racicot, then chairman of the Republican National Committee, said about the late Sen. Paul Wellstone's opposition to the war resolution: "He has set about to diminish the capacity of this nation to defend itself. That is a legitimate issue." Wellstone, who died in a plane crash a few days before the election, was not intimidated. But other Democrats were. The bad faith of Bush's current argument is staggering. He wants to say that the "more than a hundred Democrats in the House and Senate" who "voted to support removing Saddam Hussein from power" thereby gave up their right to question his use of intelligence forever after. But he does not want to acknowledge that he forced the war vote to take place under circumstances that guaranteed the minimum amount of reflection and debate, and that opened anyone who dared question his policies to charges, right before an election, that they were soft on Hussein. By linking the war on terrorism to a partisan war against Democrats, Bush undercut his capacity to lead the nation in this fight. And by resorting to partisan attacks again last week, Bush only reminded us of the shameful circumstances in which the whole thing started.

To: Bill who wrote (713363)	11/16/2005 2:08:05 AM
From: paret	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769670

Radio host axed for Islam slam lands a Hub gig Boston Herald ^ \| 11/15/05 \| Jay Fitzgerald A Virginia talk-show host who was fired from his last full-time radio gig for calling Islam a “terrorist organization” was tapped yesterday to replace bad-boy Jay Severin as host of WTKK (96.9-FM)’s coveted afternoon drive-time show. Michael Graham, who was canned this summer by WMAL in Washington, D.C. for repeatedly making the anti-Muslim remarks and refusing to apologize for them, said yesterday he believes his controversial comments reflected reality – and still do in the wake of recent terrorist bombings in Jordan. “I stand by it,” said Graham, 42, a former stand-up comedian and GOP political consultant who officially took over Severin’s afternoon slot yesterday on the all-talk WTKK. Islamic groups said they’re disappointed with the decision by Greater Media, owner of WTKK and other Hub radio stations, to hire Graham. “When you describe one-fifth of the world’s population to be a member of a terrorist organization, that amounts to bigotry,” said Ibrahim Hooper, a spokesman for the Council on American-Islamic Relations. Hooper’s group was the first to demand that WMAL punish Graham this past summer after he made the inflammatory on-air remarks about Islam. Hooper said his group will be closely monitoring Graham’s show to see if he makes similar controversial comments in Boston. Zainab Al-Suwaij, executive director of the American Islamic Congress in Boston, said Graham “totally doesn’t understand Islam,” noting that the vast majority of Muslim citizens in Jordan were outraged by last week’s lethal terror bombings. She said that Graham’s description of Islam as a “terrorist organization” is a form of “hate speech.” Peter Smyth, chief executive of Greater Media, said he thinks Graham learned his lesson in Washington and will “not be demeaning” to groups on WTKK. “I think he’s a very bright guy,” said Smyth, adding the audience reaction to Graham’s recent two-week tryout to replace Severin was “incredibly positive.” Graham, a native of South Carolina, said he was “very excited” about hosting a show in Boston and wants to focus on local and national issues. In July, Graham called Islam a “terrorist organization” nearly two dozen times on-air after the London terror bombings, arguing that not enough Muslims were condemning the attacks, proving there was something wrong at the core of the religion.

To: Bill who wrote (713363)	11/16/2005 2:18:28 AM
From: paret	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

Bolton says UN in a time warp, may have to be replaced Big News Network ^ \| November 15, 2005 The United States reportedly may look for a U.N. substitute if that body doesn't improve in problem solving and responding to U.S. needs. U.N. Ambassador John R. Bolton told The Washington Times that the Bush administration requires nothing less than a revolution of reform at the United Nations. "That," he said, "would cover everything from Security Council engagement to management changes to a focus on administrative skills in choosing the next secretary-general." The United Nations, which he said seemed caught in a time warp, "has got to be a place to solve problems that need solving, rather than a place where problems go, never to emerge." "We have to decide whether a particular issue is best done through the U.N. or best done through some other mechanism," Bolton told the Times. "One alternative to the United Nations," he said, "is for regional organizations to play a larger role, praising the Organization of American States and the African Union."