SI
SI
discoversearch

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 : Don't Blame Me, I Voted For Kerry -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: ChinuSFO who wrote (74596)3/19/2006 9:50:43 AM
From: paretRespond to of 81568
 
Senator Dick Durbin a Hypocrite??????? LOL
..........................................................

(Durbin supported military action against Iraq under Clinton)

Dick Durbin Press Release ^ | December 17, 1998 | Dick Durbin

web.archive.org

For Immediate Release Contact: Melissa Merz (202) 224-7028 December 17, 1998

DURBIN STATEMENT ON MILITARY ACTION AGAINST IRAQ

I fully support President Clinton and our national security team's decision to take swift action against Saddam Hussein.

The attack against this dictator should come as no surprise.

The record clearly shows that he has harassed American and United Nations inspectors, ordered the destruction of important documents in anticipation of inspections and hampered the ability of inspectors to carry out their mission. His defiant protection of his weapons of mass destruction cannot go unanswered.

The mission has bipartisan support, including U.S. Sen. Jesse Helms (R-NC), Chairman of the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee; U.S. Sen. Richard Lugar (R-IN); and U.S. Sen. John Warner (R-VA), incoming Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

I call on those who question the motives of the president and his national security advisors to join with the rest of America in presenting a united front to our enemies abroad.

The men and women who are risking their lives in defense of our national and global security deserve nothing less.



To: ChinuSFO who wrote (74596)3/19/2006 9:59:16 AM
From: paretRead Replies (1) | Respond to of 81568
 
Anti-war protesters in SLC, elsewhere lament apathy [Moonbats can't draw a crowd LOL]
Salt Lake Tribune ^ | 3/19/2006 | Staff and combined news service

By the time the war protesters began their march Saturday morning in Salt Lake City, only about 50 people had gathered. Their numbers had swelled to about 200 by noon - and that was with a little high-tech help from a marcher who text-messaged friends to join him.

The early low turnout was discouraging to some, such as Susan Westergard of Holladay.

"There's just about more policemen here than people," said the Democratic candidate for the Utah House of Representatives in District 40, nodding to the squadron of eight motorcycle officers parked alongside 400 South. "I guess the longer the war goes on, the more people accept it."

The protesters, organized by the People for Peace and Justice of Utah, marched from Pioneer Park to a rally on the steps of the City-County Building, where they listened to songs, speeches and chants condemning the war.

It was a scene repeated across the United States and the world Saturday as thousands of demonstrators took to the streets to mark today's third anniversary of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.

The protests, like those held to mark each of the two previous anniversaries of the March 2003 invasion, were vigorous and peaceful but far smaller than the large-scale marches that preceded the war, despite polls showing lower public support for the war than in years past and anemic approval ratings for President Bush, himself a focus of many of the protesters.

In Times Square, about 1,000 anti-war protesters rallied outside a military recruiting station, demanding that troops be withdrawn from Iraq.

Police in London said 15,000 people joined a march from Parliament and Big Ben to a rally in Trafalgar Square. The anniversary last year attracted 45,000 protesters in the city.

In Turkey, where opposition to the war cuts across all political stripes, about 3,000 protesters gathered in Istanbul, police said. ''Murderer USA,'' read a sign in Taksim Square.

One of the biggest protests was in San Francisco, for decades a hub of anti-war sentiment. Police there estimated the crowd gathered outside City Hall at about 6,000 people. Many chanted slogans opposing Bush, and most appeared to hail from a distinctly grayer demographic than that of other protest events.

''There are not enough young people here,'' said Paul Perchonock, 61, a physician. ''They don't see themselves as having a stake.''

In his weekly radio broadcast, Bush defended the administration's record in Iraq, saying the decision to depose the regime of Saddam Hussein was ''a difficult decision - and it was the right decision.'' He pledged to ''finish the mission'' despite calls for withdrawal.

In Washington, a relatively small crowd of about 300 gathered at the Naval Observatory, where Vice President Dick Cheney lives, and marched to Dupont Circle. Debbie Boch, 52, a restaurant manager from Denver, said she and two friends bought plane tickets to Washington two months ago, before the demonstration had been planned. It was the fifth protest march she had attended since the war began, she said, and among the smallest.

''It's very disappointing, especially in Washington, D.C.,'' she said. ''You think this is the place where people come to make things happen. I'm just not sure why there aren't more people here today.''

At the Salt Lake City march and rally, protesters read and commented on each other's signs, like the large image of Bush carried by Gail Davis. Under the slogan "War dead on your head," the president's face was created out of a mosaic of photographs of dead U.S. soldiers.

Davis said she joins a peace vigil every Thursday night at the Bennett Federal Building at 125 S. State St. "We're not getting too many death threats anymore," said Davis, who works at as a manager at a law office. "Nobody's tried to run over us or anything for a while."

Darian Richards, 9, marched from Pioneer Park with a sign that read: "Bring my dad home." Richard Evans' said "Welcome to 1984," a reference to George Orwell's book. Others drew upon the messages of an earlier generation of activists: "I have a dream," one sign announced over a picture of jail bars printed over the faces of Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney.

Jacob Floyd, a 22-year-old Brigham Young University student, said he was thinking of the future when he decided to attend.

"I came today because I want to tell my kids I did everything I could to stand up for what's wrong in our country right now," he said.

Floyd announced his politics on his chest, thanks to a homemade white T-shirt with the headline "They lied" over the faces of administration officials, including Bush and Cheney, and the words "They died" over a list of names of dead U.S. soldiers.

Throughout the morning, a group of eight women dressed in pink-and-black outfits occasionally broke out in chants. "Resist, resist, raise up your fist," shouted Raphael Cordray of Salt Lake, one of the "Pom Poms Not Bomb Bombs" cheerleaders. "Show 'em that you're pissed. Resist, resist, fight the capitalists."

Cordray said the group of friends, who range in age from 22 to 55, were inspired by radical cheerleading groups in other states, and used chants as a way to express their political views in a lighthearted way. "Some of the cheers we tone down for Salt Lake City," she said.



To: ChinuSFO who wrote (74596)3/19/2006 12:37:36 PM
From: paretRespond to of 81568
 
Before Its Time, the Death of a Newspaper Chain (Dinosaur Media Extinction Alert)
The New York Times ^ | March 19, 2006 | RICHARD SIKLOS

ONLY a handful of days have passed since he announced the deal to sell Knight Ridder, but P. Anthony Ridder, the company's chairman and chief executive, already has ghosts to contend with. The biggest, of course, is the pending disappearance of the company his great-grandfather, Herman, founded in 1892 — Ridder Publications, which merged in 1974 with Knight Newspapers to create what has for much of recent memory been the nation's second-largest newspaper group, with 32 dailies.

But he also has to wrestle with the fact — apparently unknown to him until the deal was sealed — that the buyer, the McClatchy Company, plans to turn around and sell 12 of Knight Ridder's biggest papers, representing nearly half its $3 billion in annual revenue. "It's terrible," Mr. Ridder said after the deal was announced. "The whole thing."

Then why did he do it? Mr. Ridder's heartfelt contention is that he was boxed into a corner, and he extracted the best outcome from a tough situation. With its stock lagging and its biggest shareholder, Private Capital Management, agitating for change since last fall, Mr. Ridder had few options.

He personally owns only 1.9 percent of the company's shares, and Knight Ridder isn't governed by the kind of dual-tier share structure that keeps voting control in the hands of a founding family and is quite common in the media industry. (One example is the arrangement at The New York Times Company.) An argument can be made, and has been, that Mr. Ridder struck a good deal with a preferred acquirer. But it doesn't quite add up. The end of Knight Ridder looks like nothing so much as a stunning capitulation in a period when every bean-counting fund manager can fancy himself an activist and media companies are in the investment dog house.

(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...



To: ChinuSFO who wrote (74596)3/19/2006 12:47:34 PM
From: paretRead Replies (1) | Respond to of 81568
 
Sen. Feingold's Failed Impeachment Ploy Reveals Democrats' Disarray
NewsMax ^ | March 17, 2006 | David Limbaugh

Doesn't it strike you as ironic that one of the major architects of a legislative scheme that tramples all over the First Amendment had the gall to try to censure President Bush for the wireless surveillance of terrorists?

At least with the Clinton impeachment, which many wanted to dilute to a censure and others to a mere verbal wrist-slap, there was no question that he committed multiple felonies. But now Sen. Russ Feingold demands that Bush be censured over a matter on which, to quote Al Gore, "there is no controlling legal authority," and which many believe is legal, proper, and, most importantly: imperative for our national security? And in case you missed it, Feingold said that the NSA surveillance program is precisely the type of activity the Framers had in mind in contemplating "high crimes and misdemeanors." Right, Russ.

Feingold's reckless ploy brings to mind the similarly frivolous stunt by Vietnam veteran John Kerry to phone in a filibuster on Judge Samuel Alito from a five-star ski resort in the Swiss Alps.

Both men's gratuitous schemes were absurd on their face and guaranteed to fail. They didn't even garner support among a significant number of their fellow Democrats in the Senate. But what they did have in common was their perverse appeal to the Democrats' mouth-frothing base, which is a condition precedent to securing the Democratic presidential nomination.

Overall, we must conclude that Feingold's gambit was even more ill-conceived than Kerry's. While Kerry's filibuster was marginally about Alito's alleged future enabling of President Bush's NSA surveillance program, it was far more about his suspected stance on abortion precedent. But Feingold's censure was only about the NSA program, and no matter how vociferously the antiwar left calls for Bush's head, the stubborn fact is that the public supports the program.

Feingold's move, the Democrats' conspicuous exodus from it, and Feingold's bitter reaction to their fecklessness, illustrate the tangled web the Democrats have weaved for themselves concerning the premiere issue of the day (and tomorrow): the War on Terror.

Feingold didn't mince words in accusing his party of "cowering," when they not only wouldn't support his measure, but frantically avoided press questions about their refusal.

On that point, Feingold is correct. Democrat leaders often fold when challenged to demonstrate the courage of their so-called convictions, especially where national security is concerned. They are all over the map, or at least back and forth from east to west, because their positions aren't based on deep-held convictions, but political calculations, which are a moving target.

We saw the exact same thing when Democrat after Democrat praised Congressman John Murtha for "boldly" calling for a precipitous withdrawal of our troops from Iraq. Yet when the rubber hit the road, they ran like a stampede of elephants to avoid putting themselves on record as supporting withdrawal.

When it comes to national security, the Democrats want it both ways. They insist they support the troops while denigrating most everything they do, from alleged torture and abuse, to not finding Osama, not training Iraqi soldiers quickly enough, terrorizing Iraqi citizens and killing innocents. They say they want to intercept phone calls from Al Qaeda, yet do everything they can to make it more difficult. They politically exploit the issue, fraudulently mischaracterize the program as "domestic" spying, imply innocent grandmas are likely victims, and demand we hamstring authorities by requiring warrants when it wouldn't be practical.

They wag their fingers about racial profiling at airports -- preferring the wanding of those same grandmas they're trying to protect from the evil NSA - then go ape over the ports transfer to the Arab Dubai Ports World. And on the latest Bush-is-evil craze, concerning the president's speech on preemption, let's not forget that John Kerry himself grudgingly conceded to ABC's George Stephanopoulos that he was not necessarily opposed to pre-emption, just that the president had invoked it "unwisely." This was, of course, after Kerry had opposed it, and before, no doubt, he decides to oppose it again in time to pile on President Bush for his latest iteration of the doctrine in partial reference to the Iran nuclear threat.

My head spins as I think about this stuff. Can you imagine the spectacle of the Democratic presidential primaries, with each of the vying candidates trying to out-crazy the other to appeal to the deranged base while straining to retain a sufficient appearance of sanity to remain viable for the general election? Let them bask in news of President Bush's low approval ratings now, but entertaining times from the other side are just over the horizon



To: ChinuSFO who wrote (74596)3/19/2006 2:16:22 PM
From: paretRead Replies (2) | Respond to of 81568
 
When Bill Clinton misled us into an obscure region called Kosovo to stop a genocide that wasn't happening, he told us it would stabilize the region, keep the conflict from spreading.

This is precisely what Milosevic was doing.

Like clockwork, within months of our intervention, the Albanians moved on to terrorize Macedonia, and now they are fighting for parts of Southern Serbia, Montenegro and Greece--to form the Greater Albania that had been their nationalistic and Islamic vision all along.

Meanwhile, as UN human rights observer Jiri Dienstbier has said, "Kosovo is an infinitely more dangerous place than it was before" the U.S.-led NATO intervention. What we managed to do, if you can imagine, was destabilize the notoriously unstable Balkans.