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 : I Will Continue to Continue, to Pretend.... -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sully- who wrote (18877)	3/22/2006 10:48:37 AM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

"I did notice that nobody from the Democrat Party has actually stood up and called for getting rid of the terrorist surveillance program. You know, if that's what they believe, if people in the party believe that, then they ought to stand up and say it. They ought to stand up and say the tools we're using to protect the American people shouldn't be used. They ought to take their message to the people and say, vote for me, I promise we're not going to have a terrorist surveillance program. That's what they ought to be doing. That's part of what is an open and honest debate." And They Call Him Dumb Posted by Mark Noonan Blogs for Bush For a man who's critics call him dumb as a box of rocks, he sure has his critics number - from yesterday's press conference: <<< ...You brought it up; you said, how do I react to a bombing that took place yesterday -- is precisely what the enemy understands is possible to do. I'm not suggesting you shouldn't talk about it. I'm certainly not being -- please don't take that as criticism. But it also is a realistic assessment of the enemies capability to affect the debate, and they know that. They're capable of blowing up innocent life so it ends up on your TV show. And, therefore, it affects the woman in Cleveland you were talking to. And I can understand how Americans are worried about whether or not we can win.... ...And it has been a success. But no question about it, we missed sometime as we adjusted our tactics. We had to change our reconstruction strategy. We were -- we thought it made sense, initially, when we went in there to build big, grand projects, which turned out to be targets for the insurgents to blow up. And a better strategy was to be spending reconstruction money at the local level, so that local leaders committed to a peaceful and unified Iraq would benefit. In other words, people would see tangible benefits from an emerging democracy, and the leaders would be viewed as people helping to improve their lives. And so this is a war in which we've changed tactics. It's a war in which we've adjusted and learned lessons in the process of the war... ... I think during these difficult times -- and they are difficult when we're at war -- the American people expect there to be a honest and open debate without needless partisanship. And that's how I view it. I did notice that nobody from the Democrat Party has actually stood up and called for getting rid of the terrorist surveillance program. You know, if that's what they believe, if people in the party believe that, then they ought to stand up and say it. They ought to stand up and say the tools we're using to protect the American people shouldn't be used. They ought to take their message to the people and say, vote for me, I promise we're not going to have a terrorist surveillance program. That's what they ought to be doing. That's part of what is an open and honest debate. I did notice that, at one point in time, they didn't think the Patriot Act ought to be reauthorized -- "they" being at least the Minority Leader in the Senate. He openly said, as I understand -- I don't want to misquote him -- something along the lines that, "We killed the Patriot Act." And if that's what the party believes, they ought to go around the country saying we shouldn't give the people on the front line of protecting us the tools necessary to do so. That's a debate I think the country ought to have... >>>(emphasis added) President Bush keeps beating his opponents because he's the wiser man - the man more in touch with the truth, with American ideals - and with that inner courage which is necessary for any person in leadership. The objections to Bush policies, when not entirely based upon lies, are based upon a mixture of ignorance plus ambition - people who don't know, but still believe they should be in charge. The archetype of this sort of person is none other than Nancy Pelosi - the ignormamous's ignoramous, but she just considers herself to be oh, so smart...and so much smarter than President Bush (who runs rings around her intellectually). In a way, this is kind of fun to watch -even though its the fourth time we've watched this play out since Bush was elected. blogsforbush.com whitehouse.gov

To: Sully- who wrote (18877)	3/22/2006 11:38:49 AM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

If you have read my thread you already know that Bush made an excellent case for Iraq & the GWOT yesterday. And he exposed the MSM & DNC for the lying treacherous scum they have become. So how is it portrayed in the MSM? Reporting the President's Press Conference Posted by John Power Line President Bush did an excellent job in his press conference yesterday; among other things, he vigorously and effectively defended our progress in Iraq and the accomplishments of his administration during its second term. The transcript of the press conference is linked below. So what are the newspaper headlines this morning? Washington Post: "Bush Says U.S. Troops Will Stay in Iraq Past '08". Washington Times: "Bush Commits Until 2009". Associated Press: "Bush: Troops to Stay in Iraq for Years". The New York Times' headline was even more negative: "Bush Concedes Iraq War Erodes Political Status", but its first sentence didn't miss the 2009 opportunity: <<< President Bush said Tuesday that the war in Iraq was eroding his political capital, his starkest admission yet about the costs of the conflict to his presidency, and suggested that American forces would remain in the country until at least 2009. >>> What, exactly, did Bush say that made this the most newsworthy item to come out of the press conference? Here is the exchange: <<< [M]y question is, one, is there a point at which having the American forces in Iraq becomes more a part of the problem than a part of the solution? Can you say that you will not keep American troops in there is they're caught in a crossfire and a civil war? And can you say to the American people -- assure them that there will come a day when there will be no more American forces in Iraq? BUSH: The decisions about our troop levels will be made by General Casey and the commanders on the ground. They're the ones who can best judge whether or not the presence of coalition troops create more of a problem than a solution -- than be a part of the solution. *** QUESTION: It was: Will there come a day -- and I'm not asking you when; I'm not asking for a timetable -- will there come a day when there will be no more American forces in Iraq? BUSH: That, of course, is an objective. And that will be decided by future presidents and future governments of Iraq. QUESTION: So it won't happen on your watch? BUSH: You mean a complete withdrawal? That's a timetable. I can only tell you that I will make decisions on force levels based upon what the commanders on the ground say. >>> What we mainly have here is Bush's oft-stated refusal to make decisions about troop levels based on politically-inspired timetables. No news there. Beyond that, the likelihood that some American troops may be in Iraq as of 2009--the question was framed in terms of "no more American forces"--is hardly a news flash, either. We still have troops in Germany, more than 60 years after the end of World War II. We still have troops in the Balkans, as well. Neither of these deployments is controversial. Iraq may well be seen as a desirable place to station troops for a considerable length of time. Whether such a longer-term deployment is controversial will depend on how many troops remain in Iraq and, more important, what they are doing there. If the fighting is essentially over and soldiers are not being lost, no one will care about the presence of troops in Iraq, any more than they object to the presence of troops in Germany. In truth, this was one of the less newsworthy exchanges in yesterday's press conference. But, because it suited most journalists' yearning for a quagmire, it became the lead in newspapers all across America. powerlineblog.com washingtonpost.com washingtonpost.com washtimes.com breakingnews.nypost.com nytimes.com

To: Sully- who wrote (18877)	3/22/2006 11:54:29 AM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

Bush Declares War On Helen Thomas -- Satire By Liberal Larry Right Wing News The Shrub was handed a golden opportunity (yesterday) morning to level with the American People about his real reasons for attacking Iraq, reasons that Helen Thomas would be more than happy to explain to him if he’d just open his ears and listen. Instead, he used the solemn third anniversary of his illegal and immoral quagmire to exude an unrealistic confidence in our military and its mission, while insulting a beloved American icon in the process. Helen Thomas, the Great Dane of the Washington press corps, has been the voice of honest journalism for over 175 years, and a thorn in side of both Batman and Commissioner Gordon. Her tough, take-no-prisoners style of questioning has often been mistaken for thinly disguised partisan attacks with question marks at the end of them, but she has inspired generations of progressive journalists with her dauntless courage in the face of a fascist administration, and the throes of a crippling mental illness. Since she was diagnosed with severe senile dementia in 1971, she has been unafraid to broach the questions more rational and sane reporters wouldn’t dare to. It’s a miracle she can even remember who she is, let alone find her way to the White House for one of Bush’s Lie Sessions, and she deserves his respect. If the Shrub won’t confess his crimes against humanity, bring our troops home from Iraq, legalize marijuana and step down for the good of America, then he should at least do it for her. This satire was used with the permission of BlameBush!. blamebush.typepad.com rightwingnews.com

To: Sully- who wrote (18877)	3/24/2006 6:44:45 AM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

Bush fighting back by David Limbaugh Townhall.com Mar 24, 2006 Recently, President Bush has been taking his case for the War on Terror, Iraq Theater, to the public in a new round of speeches, press conferences and other public appearances. I believe he should consider making this a frequent, permanent practice as long as we have a substantial military presence in Iraq -- or elsewhere. Not long ago he gave a series of talks, in large part to answer the constant barrage of negative coverage on Iraq and the endless personal attacks leveled against him. His message resonated with the people, and he was successful in correcting much of the disinformation that has been systematically disseminated by the Democratic Party and the Old Media. His approval ratings spiked, but the boost was short-lived. No sooner than he quit making the rounds his numbers started to crater again because his attackers are indefatigable, perpetual motion machines whose raison d'être is to savage him and undermine his presidency. Mr. Bush's purpose then was not to rehabilitate his poll numbers, but to respond to his critics and set the record straight. So long as he wasn't amply defending himself, his defenders had a much tougher sell. But now he's back in the public arena, aggressively defending his policy on Iraq. He has been very impressive, even more so with his extemporaneous remarks and responses to questions than in his prepared speeches, which can't help but confound his detractors, who believe he lacks the sense to come in out of a hurricane. I suspect his poll numbers are climbing again. Even if not, I think he should clear as much of his schedule as he can to do this as often as practicable. Lest you accuse me of hypocrisy for suggesting the president begin "to govern by the polls" since we severely criticized Bill Clinton for doing so, let me clarify. I'm not advocating he base his policies on polling data. That would be futile advice anyway, as he formulates policy based on what he believes is right. After all, isn't that one of the main complaints liberals have against him: He's just too stubborn and too inflexible? But I do believe the poll numbers -- concerning Iraq, at least -- are extremely important to the nation. The inescapable truth is that we are at war against an enemy that cannot beat us militarily. But we can defeat ourselves if the public, for a sustained period, turns against the war and withdraws its support. With exposure only to the bad news about our progress in Iraq and the nonstop propaganda about our allegedly fraudulent reasons for attacking Iraq and our alleged abuses there and at home, an erosion of public support is inevitable, unless something is done to counter it. So if President Bush truly believes in this cause -- which he does -- he has a duty to do everything he can to fortify support for the war. Forget winning the hearts and minds of the terrorists; he must win the hearts and minds of the American people -- to stay behind this war. In his appearances the president has been providing a substantive refutation of the critics' charges, including their lies about his "lies" on WMD and the NSA surveillance program. That's important, but it is even more critical that the people have an opportunity to observe his demeanor. They can assess by the tone of his voice and the expression on his face whether he is a man of integrity. They can decide for themselves whether he actually believed Saddam had WMD, abetted terrorists, represented a threat to America and her allies, and was an incorrigible violator of law, U.N. resolutions and post-war treaties who had to be stopped. They can judge whether he is the oil-craving, imperialistic ogre his enemies have described. They can weigh his sincerity in saying he wants to meet the parents of fallen American soldiers to commiserate and weep with them. They can evaluate whether he's in charge or some puppet of "neoconservative" masterminds and whether he is personally conversant with the facts. They can gauge whether he's some whimsical cowboy or a leader who genuinely agonizes over the exceedingly difficult problems we face in helping to bring liberty and representative government to certain Muslim lands, such as establishing a religiously pluralistic government that guarantees religious freedom, against the backdrop of a theocratic religious culture. For way too long the president has been squandering his greatest personal asset: his ability to connect with the people. For the sake of our national security, he is honor bound to start using that resource with increasing frequency. David Limbaugh is a syndicated columnist who blogs at DavidLimbaugh.com. He is also the author of Persecution and Absolute Power: The Legacy of Corruption in the Clinton-Reno Justice Department. Copyright © 2006 Townhall.com townhall.com