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 : Just the Facts, Ma'am: A Compendium of Liberal Fiction -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tejek who wrote (50600)	9/1/2006 5:31:33 AM
From: Sully-	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 90947

Next time you hear Democrats say they abhor lies "about war," remember a few of these gems. Plain lies, war lies and partisanship By David Limbaugh Townhall.com Columnists Friday, September 1, 2006 Democrats are outraged over President Bush's new series of national security speeches. There he goes again, politicizing the war. The Democratic leadership obviously believes the president should muzzle himself so close to the November elections because what is important for national security might also help Republicans, and that must be avoided at all costs. Democrats are furious over Defense Secretary Rumsfeld's speech to the American Legion this week, in which he compared today's appeasers to those of the World War II era and warned that we mustn't turn a blind eye to today's terrorists like many did to yesterday's Nazis. Such talk is off limits because it offends the appeasers, who, by the way, deny they're appeasers, insisting they're "tough and smart" scavengers on the hunt for the only terrorist on the planet, Osama bin Laden. His capture or death, they imply, will shut down terrorism in its tracks like a redheaded stepchild and put an end to this reckless, recreational neoconservative global gallivanting. So, let's cease further discussion of the most important issue of the day. Let's put our history books back on the shelves and consign ourselves to repeat the painful and costly mistake of ignoring the relentless march of evil in the world. In fact, Democrats are the ones politicizing the war and who view it exclusively through a partisan prism. When they stop hyperventilating, they might consider that it is the commander in chief's duty to rally popular support for the troops and their mission. Of course, the president's task wouldn't be nearly so urgent if Democrats hadn't been undermining the war effort in Iraq almost since it began with a steady stream of disinformation, focusing on the false charge that he lied us into war. They explain their sudden affinity for the truth -- in contrast to their cynically dismissive attitude toward it during the Clinton years -- as a matter of the singular importance of the war. While lying per se isn't particularly wrong under their relativist standards -- and lying about adulterous relations is even virtuous to protect one's family -- lying about war, at least by a Republican president, is so evil it pretty much drives them to the obnoxious Christian state of moral absolutism. This distinction is interesting given their own pattern of deceit concerning all aspects of the war. Let's review, shall we? -- They said Bush attacked Iraq "unilaterally," when he built a coalition of over 30 nations, including Great Britain and tried hard to persuade the rest of Old Europe to join. To their discredit, they refused. A unilateralist wouldn't have bothered. -- They deny Iraq is part of the war on terror, never mind that terrorists demonstrably disagree. Never mind that the Bush Doctrine clearly defines the enemy to include terrorist-sponsoring nations, like Saddam's Iraq. -- They claim Bush asserted a connection between Saddam and 9/11, when he explicitly said otherwise. He said Saddam had close ties to terrorists, including Al Qaeda and the Taliban, which is undeniably true and which Democrats also persist in falsely denying. Indeed, Iraq was on Clinton's watch list of terrorist nations. -- They say Bush called Iraq an "imminent threat," when he called it a "great and gathering threat." The Bush Doctrine called for attacking threatening nations before they could become an imminent threat, when it would be too late. But some anti-war Democrats, like Jay Rockefeller, did call Iraq an "imminent threat." -- They say Bush's sole reason to attack Iraq was its WMD. In fact, David Horowitz notes there were 23 "whereas" clauses in the Iraq War resolution, only two of which mentioned WMD and 12 of which concerned Saddam's violations of U.N. resolutions. -- They say they were duped into voting for the resolution by administration hype on WMD. But the intelligence Congress received in the National Intelligence Estimate was much less alarmist and more nuanced than the intelligence the president received in the Presidential Daily Briefings. But, hey, they had to give their anti-war base some excuse. -- They say we had Osama surrounded in Tora Bora and let him go, outsourcing the job of capturing him to Afghan warlords so we could pursue our quixotic junket in Iraq. General Tommy Franks put the lie to all of this malicious nonsense. -- On the hyped Wilson/Plame nonscandal -- don't get me started. -- Most unforgivably, they've lied in painting President Bush as a liar on Iraqi WMD. -- There's much more -- like their simultaneous condemnation and advocacy of preemptive strikes -- but no space left. Next time you hear Democrats say they abhor lies "about war," remember a few of these gems. To find out more about David Limbaugh, please visit his Web site at www.davidlimbaugh.com. And to read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com. townhall.com

To: tejek who wrote (50600)	9/2/2006 2:12:58 AM
From: Sully-	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 90947

Note that finally, after three long years of smears & sneers, lies & slanders, the WaPo is just now getting it. And you can bet the farm on this; They won't be spending the next three years with breathless, almost daily front page headlines going on & on about the horrific journalistic malpractice & left wing bias from the MSM that caused them to be so blind to the facts for so fricking long. The Washington Post gets it Betsy's Page The Post opines on the news that Richard Armitage was the source of the leak on Valerie Plame and concludes, <<< Nevertheless, it now appears that the person most responsible for the end of Ms. Plame's CIA career is Mr. Wilson. Mr. Wilson chose to go public with an explosive charge, claiming -- falsely, as it turned out -- that he had debunked reports of Iraqi uranium-shopping in Niger and that his report had circulated to senior administration officials. He ought to have expected that both those officials and journalists such as Mr. Novak would ask why a retired ambassador would have been sent on such a mission and that the answer would point to his wife. He diverted responsibility from himself and his false charges by claiming that President Bush's closest aides had engaged in an illegal conspiracy. It's unfortunate that so many people took him seriously. >>> Yes, including all those in the media who went crazy on this story and have consistently mischaracterized it and neglected to point out that Wilson's claims were indeed false and that he knew it. I still can't get over the sliminess of Armitage sitting back all this time knowing that he was the source of the leak and just watching passively while the White House took all the heat for leaking the story. He saw people having their reputations shredded and knew that he was the one. And Colin Powell knew it all also. They were content to let suspicion fall on those they didn't like in the White House when they could have come forward right from the beginning. There is something so low about such behavior. I know that I'll think of this every time I see Powell and I hope that someone will ask John McCain if he really thinks that Armitage has the moral characteristics that McCain wants in an adviser. betsyspage.blogspot.com washingtonpost.com

To: tejek who wrote (50600)	9/2/2006 6:49:53 AM
From: Sully-	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 90947

The Mississippi coast was hit harder by Katrina than New Orleans was. And although New Orleans’ levee failure was a unique problem — one the local leadership ignored for decades — the devastation in Mississippi was in many respects more severe. And you know what? Mississippi has the same federal government as Louisiana, and reconstruction there is going gangbusters while, after more than $120 billion in federal spending, New Orleans remains a basket case. Here’s a wacky idea: Maybe it’s not all Bush’s fault. Give Bush a Break In praise of George W. By Jonah Goldberg National Review Online Lord knows I have my problems with President Bush. He taps the federal coffers like a monkey smacking the bar for another cocaine pellet in an addiction study. Some of his sentences give me the same sensation as falling backward in one of those “trust” exercises, in which you just have to hope things work out. Yes, the Iraq invasion has gone badly, and to deny this is to suggest that Bush meant for things to turn out this way, which is even crueler than saying he failed to get it right. But you know what? It’s time to cut the guy some slack. Of course, I will get hippo-choking amounts of e-mail from Bush-haters telling me that all I ever do is cut Bush slack. But these folks grade on the curve. By their standards, anything short of demanding that a half-starved badger be sewn into his belly flunks. Besides, the Bush-bashers have lost credibility. The most delicious example came this week when it was finally revealed that Colin Powell’s oak-necked majordomo Richard Armitage — and not some star-chamber neocon — “outed” Valerie Plame, the spousal prop of Washington’s biggest ham, Joe Wilson. Now it turns out that instead of “Bush blows CIA agent’s cover to silence a brave dissenter” — as Wilson practices saying into the mirror every morning — the story is, “One Bush enemy inadvertently taken out by another’s friendly fire.” And then there’s Hurricane Katrina. Yes, the federal government could have responded better. And of course there were real tragedies involved in that disaster. But you know what? Bad stuff happens during disasters, which is why we don’t call them tickle-parties. The anti-Bush chorus, including enormous segments of the mainstream media, sees Katrina as nothing more than a good stick for beating on Piñata Bush’s “competence.” The hypocrisy is astounding because the media did such an abysmal job covering the reality of New Orleans (contrary to reports, there were no bands of rapists, no disproportionate deaths of poor blacks, nothing close to 10,000 dead, etc.). It seems indisputable that Katrina highlighted the tragedy of New Orleans rather than created it. Long before Katrina, New Orleans was a dysfunctional city in a state with famously corrupt and incompetent leadership, many of whose residents think that it is the job of the federal government to make everyone whole. The Mississippi coast was hit harder by Katrina than New Orleans was. And although New Orleans’ levee failure was a unique problem — one the local leadership ignored for decades — the devastation in Mississippi was in many respects more severe. And you know what? Mississippi has the same federal government as Louisiana, and reconstruction there is going gangbusters while, after more than $120 billion in federal spending, New Orleans remains a basket case. Here’s a wacky idea: Maybe it’s not all Bush’s fault. Then, of course, there’s the war on terror. Democrats love to note that Bush hasn’t caught Osama bin Laden yet, as if this is the most vital metric for success. Yes, it’d be nice to catch bin Laden — no doubt Ramsey Clark, the top legal gun for both LBJ and Saddam Hussein, will be looking for a new client soon. But even nicer than catching bin Laden is not having thousands of dead Americans in New York, Washington, and L.A. Contrary to all expert predictions, there hasn’t been a successful attack on the homeland since 9/11. Indeed, the current issue of the Atlantic Monthly contains a long, exhaustively reported cover story by James Fallows about how the U.S. is, in fact, winning the war on terror, thanks largely to Bush’s policies (though Fallows works hard not to credit Bush). Political dissatisfaction with the president rests entirely on Iraq and overall Bush fatigue. The rest amounts to little more than Iraq-motivated brickbats gussied up to look like freestanding complaints. That’s how hate works: It looks for more excuses to hate in the same way that fire looks for more stuff to burn. That’s why Bush’s Democratic critics flit about like bilious butterflies, exploiting each superficial or transient problem just long enough to score some points in the polls, then moving on. Bush’s Medicare plan was an egregious corporate giveaway, they cried, until seniors overwhelmingly reported that they like it. And the Patriot Act? Can anyone even remember what the Democrats were whining about? I think it had something to do with libraries that were never searched. Look, things could obviously be a lot better. But they could be a lot worse too. John Kerry could be president. ©2006 Tribune Media Services, Inc. article.nationalreview.com