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 : Sioux Nation -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: SiouxPal who wrote (65133)	4/23/2006 12:19:05 PM
From: T L Comiskey	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 361126

Bush Meets Privately With Think Tank Promoting Military Strike On Iran ThinkProgress.com Saturday 22 April 2006 This tidbit about President Bush's schedule was buried in today's Washington Post: Bush traveled Friday night to Stanford University, where he met privately with members of the libertarian Hoover Institution to discuss the war. He concluded the day with a private dinner held by George P. Shultz, a Hoover fellow and former secretary of state. Why is this significant? The Hoover Institution is a think tank that has been aggressively promoting the viability of a preemptive military strike in Iran. Here's just a couple of recent examples - Thomas Sowell, a senior fellow at Hoover: [Europe] will be able to think of all sorts of nicer alternatives to taking out Iran's nuclear development sites. They will be able to come up with all sorts of abstract arguments and moral equivalence, such as: Other countries have nuclear weapons. Why not Iran? Debating abstract questions is much easier than confronting concrete and often brutal alternatives. The big question is whether we are serious or suicidal. [Creators Syndicate, 1/3/06] Tod Lindberg, a research fellow at Hoover: Whatever it is that Saddam was going to perpetrate in his remaining years in power, whatever he intended to bequeath to his sons and whatever in turn they would do to follow up on his legacy, this we have prevented... Which takes us back to Iran...I don't think it would be a good idea to wait around in the hope that we never arrive at the moment when we realize we should have done something. [Washington Times, 4/18/06] George P. Schultz, who hosted the event, was an "early defender of the use of pre-emptive force to deal with Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq." -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Go to Original Protesters Force Bush to Move Stanford Meeting Mercury News Friday 21 April 2006 President Bush's visit to Stanford University's Hoover Institution was quickly moved to another location after more than 1,000 protesters converged around the Hoover tower. The White House said the protesters blocked the only road into the central areaof the campus where Hoover is located, which forced a meeting with several Hoover fellows to be moved to the campus home of former Secretary of State George Shultz, a Hoover fellow who organized the gathering. The motorcade instead traveled to the house, which is on the outer edge of campus. The change in plans delayed the president's arrival by about 15 minutes. Protesters said they were disappointed that the President would not see them and accused the President of sneaking around to avoid them. -------

To: SiouxPal who wrote (65133)	4/23/2006 12:35:05 PM
From: T L Comiskey	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 361126

Dobbs: Hu's visit shows who's in charge By Lou Dobbs CNN Wednesday, April 19, 2006; Posted: 6:57 p.m. EDT (22:57 GMT)NEW YORK CITY (CNN) -- Chinese President Hu Jintao meets with President Bush in the nation's capital Thursday after a cross-country trip for Hu that follows his state dinner with billionaire Bill Gates. The Chinese president's first two days in this country included stops at Boeing and Microsoft, raising questions about the purpose of President Hu's visit. The fact that Hu's summit at the White House comes only after touring two of our most profitable businesses means "checkbook diplomacy" is no longer purely an American strategy. China's economy has grown by an average of about 10 percent a year over the past two decades. This year, China moved ahead of Britain and France to become the world's fourth-largest economy. It's also changing the global supply chain, becoming the world's leading buyer of basic commodities, whether grain, meat, coal and steel, and is second to only the United States in consumption of oil. China is buying up American companies and other multinational corporations with almost $900 billion of hard currency reserves. China has now arrived, and we no longer refer to our series on China's rapid economic and military build-up as "Red Star Rising." The title of that reporting is now "Red Storm." But the Red Storm cannot be blamed for its continued manipulation of its currency, for its record $202 billion trade surplus with the United States or for buying up American businesses and hard assets around the globe while restricting access to its market and economy. The fault lies entirely with the U.S. government, our lack of strategy and our failed policies. This administration and U.S. multinational corporations have lost sight of the national interest. This administration and the Republican-led Congress have permitted the dismantling of America's manufacturing base and created a dependency on China for our clothing, computers, consumer electronics and a host of other products that is greater than our dependency on foreign oil. Make no mistake: Our leaders are the fools, and China's leaders are not to be blamed for taking advantage of this administration's commitment to faith-based economic theories and so-called free trade that permits the Chinese access to the world's richest consumer market while China denies our businesses access to its emerging market. We can only blame ourselves and our business leaders for offshoring production to China. We can only blame ourselves and our business leaders for permitting the transfer of our knowledge base in technology to China. And we can only blame ourselves and our business leaders for shipping middle-class jobs to China in search of lower labor costs. When you watch President Hu and President Bush shake hands at the White House, it would be wise for all of us to remember what that handshake costs America. And remember, there's a reason President Hu met with business leaders in Seattle first. He obviously knows who's really in charge of this country.