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: James Calladine who wrote (12223)	12/26/2005 7:41:09 PM
From: Don Earl	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 20039

RE: "creating another with identical content in competition." There are more than a few topics on SI that are similar in content, but have slightly different approaches. As close as I could ever tell, they tend to enhance each other by creating different perspectives, rather than anything that could really be considered competition. The last time I looked, there were over 25 million matches for an Internet search of "9/11 conspiracy". At about the time I started this thread, there were around 30,000. I think it would be pretty hard to argue that "competition" has hurt the cause. I quite honestly can't think of any reason why SI should only have one board devoted to discussions of 9/11. It also seems to me that a fresh approach to the topic, from a different perspective, and under a different format might be just what the doctor ordered. Discussions tend to get inbred over a period of time without new blood. Certain views, information, opinions and personalities tend to dominate after awhile, and even with the best of intentions, the result can be to close off worthwhile approaches coming from a different angle. I'm not sure a moderated clone of this thread would fill the bill, but I'm quite serious when I suggest additional discussion groups devoted to the topic might be a good thing. It won't hurt my feelings a bit if someone wants to give it a shot and I'll do my best to support any efforts along those lines. Or for that matter, start a blog off SI and post or repost any content that seems appropriate. In any case while I don't have much interest in becoming the moderator of additional 9/11 discussion forums, I'm very much in favor of additional discussion groups being formed and moderated by others. The more the merrier.

To: James Calladine who wrote (12223)	12/28/2005 1:41:03 AM
From: paret	Respond to of 20039

THE GRAY LADY TOYS WITH TREASON New York Post ^ \| 12/27/05 \| nypost.com ________________________________________ December 27, 2005 -- Has The New York Times declared itself to be on the front line in the war against the War on Terror? The self-styled paper of record seems to be trying to reclaim the loyalty of those radical lefties who ludicrously accused it of uncritically reporting on Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. Yet the paper has done more than merely try to embarrass the Bush administration these last few months. It has published classified information — and thereby knowingly blown the covers of secret programs and agencies engaged in combating the terrorist threat. The most notorious example was the paper's disclosure some 10 days ago that, since 9/11, the Bush administration has "secretly" engaged in warrantless eavesdropping on U.S.-based international phone calls and e-mails. It's not secret anymore, of course — though the folks who reacted to the naming of Valerie Plame as a CIA operative aren't exactly shrieking for another grand jury investigation. On the contrary: Democrats and their news-media allies — particularly on CNN and CBS — are openly suggesting that the president committed an impeachable offense and could (read: should) be removed from office. In fact, the Times managed only to blow the lid off of what President Bush rightly calls "a vital tool in our war against the terrorists" — one that already has uncovered several terrorist plots. Is it legal? The administration insists so, and notes that congressional Democrats got repeated briefings on the program, with few objections. Sure, the legality can be debated — but the case against it is far from a slam-dunk. As for taking action without court-issued warrants, both the last two Democratic presidents, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, used warrantless searches — and strongly defended them as fully justified under the authority granted the president by the Constitution. In fact, the Washington Times reports that Clinton expanded their use to purely domestic situations — such as violent public-housing projects. The Times says it held the story for more than a year, provoking a predictable uproar on the left. So why did it finally go ahead? According to a Los Angeles Times report, New York Times editors knew that a book by the article's author was to be published in just a few weeks — and they feared losing their "exclusive" to their own reporter's outside work. But the exact timing is highly suspect. The article appeared on the very day that the Senate was to vote on a Democratic filibuster against renewal of the anti-terrorist Patriot Act — a vote the Bush administration then lost. At least two previously undecided senators said they voted against the act precisely because of the Times piece. BUT it's not just the National Security Agency story. Last May, the Times similarly "exposed" — in painstaking detail — the fact that the CIA uses its own airline service, posing as a private charter company, as "the discreet bus drivers of the battle against terrorism." In fact, as the Times itself reported, "the civilian planes can go places American military craft would not be welcome." In an unconventional war, like the one against terrorism, the ability to move personnel around quickly and inconspicuously — or to deliver captured terrorists to a third country — is indispensable. Thanks to the Times, that ability has been irrevocably compromised — costing Washington yet another vital tool in the War on Terror. Then, not content to merely sabotage the federal government, the Times last week blew the whistle on the fact that the New York Police Department has been using plainclothes officers during protest demonstrations. In particular, the cops have been exercising their vigilance on the group called Critical Mass, which the Times refers to benignly as "a monthly bicycle ride." Not quite. Yes, it began as peaceful, law-abiding rides — orderly protests. But it deteriorated last year into mass disruptions of traffic. A federal judge unwisely refused the city's demand that the riders obtain a police permit in advance — but still admitted that the monthly protests were "spawning potential dangers." All along, the NYPD has not been trying to shut the Critical Mass protests down or abridge anyone's First Amendment rights. It has only insisted on safeguards — like permits — to guarantee that no laws are broken and traffic disruptions are held to a minimum. Unable to get the courts to agree, the cops instead used plainclothes cops "to prevent and respond to acts of violence and other unlawful activity." In other words, to protect the people of New York. Now, the Times has "exposed" this police work — and not just in words, but by splashing the pictures of these undercover officers across the pages of the newspaper, without making even the slightest effort to protect their identities. And make no mistake: The result will be to compromise the ability of the NYPD to work undercover at a time of increasing danger to the city from back-pack-toting terrorists — a la Madrid and London. Does The New York Times consider it self a law unto itself — free to subversively undercut basic efforts by any government to protect and defend its citizens? The Times, it appears, is less concerned with promoting its dubious views on civil liberties than with undercutting the Bush administration. The end result of the paper's flagrant irresponsibility: Lives have been put in danger on the international, national and local levels. The ability of the nation to perform the most fundamental mission of any government — protection of its citizens — has been pointlessly compromised. The Jayson Blair and Judith Miller fias coes were high-profile embarrass ments for The Times, but at the end of the day mostly damaged the newspaper alone. The NSA, CIA and NYPD stories are of a different order of magnitude — they place in unnecessary danger the lives of U.S. citizens. The New York Times — a once-great and still-powerful institution — is badly in need of adult supervision.