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.

Technology Stocks : Max90's LINK STORAGE to stock quotes -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: LTK007 who wrote (1216)	10/24/2006 2:18:35 AM
From: LTK007	Respond to of 3906

Continued. Key factor; there appears to be a major power group that sees Bush policy as a real danger to the United States. The prevailing view is Bush will of course concede to this power groups demands, this is based on the notion Bush is not in fact INSANE, and will this act rationally. I , in rebuttal, ask for one piece of evidence that Bush and his fellow Thugs have acted rationally thus far; i say you can not find a moment when they have. Others state he would never reject a plan that his own father is supporting and has even seen to it th James Baker be the presenter of the new policy(which includes Direct talks with Tehran). Remind when Tim Russert ask about how is getting along with his father Bush replied "What do you mean by father? do you mean MY FATHER IN HEAVEN or my biological father" A perfectly rational response? No way! Russert like was really referring to the Bush 'es Heavenly Father--of course not. But Bush wasn't certain however--whew!! Hersh has reported that Bush thinks he MUSY attack Iran while he is in office as no one else woll have the guts to attack Iran. He is pre-ordained to attack Iran. Remember Bush has been quoted he believes G-d is the one that has made him president. O.K. let just say Bush does reject the new blueprint, what if the power people then begin to believe Bush will attack Iran and this would be INSANE and a real danger to U.S. and world stability. These people are powerful enough to attempt a Coup, and throw Bush and his Neo-Con idealogic fanatics out of the WH. i also remind i represent a massive contingent if about 1%!!!! But i quote my self--i wrote, and ownly partilly satirically nearly 4 years ago,americans will never ever catch on about Bush until Bush leaves the WH in a straight-jacket. We are coming up on this time of this to be proven or not. As i say, if i am right, i will accept worship-LOL!!!! i also say, Bush has powerful ally in John McCain.

To: LTK007 who wrote (1216)	10/24/2006 6:08:13 AM
From: Crimson Ghost	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 3906

Max: Moe evidence of EXTREME distaste for the neo-cons at the highest levels of the foreign policy establishment. Update: Interesting on CNN Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer, former Reagan era Secretary of State Alexander Haig: AL HAIG, FORMER SECRETARY OF STATE: Well, first, I think that this is a conflict that's essentially political. It's not just purely military. It's political and religious and ideological. And it was driven by the so-called neocons that hijacked my party, the Republican Party, before this administration... BLITZER: Name names, Mr. Secretary. Who are you talking about? HAIG: Well, I'm talking about... BLITZER: Because a lot of our viewers hear the word "neocon" and they don't know what you're talking about. HAIG: Well, they're a group of people who are ex-Democrats. Many of them hovered around the Seattle Conservative Democrats some years ago, who... BLITZER: Who specifically are you referring to? HAIG: I'm talking about Wolfowitz. I'm talking about Richard Perle. I'm talking about some newly-made ones. I'm talking about the former editor of the Wall Street Journal. These people are very, very deeply embedded in Yale and certain intellectual circles. And for years, they've been against NATO... BLITZER: But did they hijack the strategy, the policy, from the president of the United States, the vice president of the United States? HAIG: Yes. BLITZER: The secretary of state, the secretary of defense? HAIG: Well, no, not the secretary of state, but he sat there and had to be a passenger on a train that he wasn't driving? BLITZER: Was Rumsfeld a neocon? HAIG: I wouldn't say he was. I wouldn't say... BLITZER: But was he in charge of the military strategy? HAIG: No, no. The outcome of the strategy was to create democracy with a bayonet. BLITZER: Is Cheney a neocon? HAIG: I think so. BLITZER: So he's part of that neocon conspiracy, or cabal, or whatever? HAIG: Those around him were, if he wasn't. BLITZER: And they could basically influence the president and dictate to the president what to do, in terms of going to war against Saddam Hussein? HAIG: Well, I'm not here to talk about that. There were a lot of influences on the president, but he's the president, and he's responsible. BLITZER: So what do you think of this argument? Because you hear it all the time, Dr. Brzezinski, that there were these group of of neoconservatives in there, like Paul Wolfowitz, who has the deputy secretary of defense; Richard Perle, who wasn't even in the government but he was an outside adviser, who were effectively shaping U.S. strategy. Do you buy that? BRZEZINSKI: I buy a great deal of that. I think Al Haig is absolutely right. We had, at the top a president, who was essentially uninformed about foreign policy, and then top policy-makers like Rumsfeld and, of course, Cheney who are, kind of, traditional, quote, end quote, "realists," hard nosed types. But the guys who provided the strategy and made the argument that we have to go into Iraq, that we have to link the war on terror with an attack on Iraq, were the guys that Al Haig is talking about. They provided strategy. They provided the argument that we would be greeted as liberators, that this would be a cake walk. And they have devastated American national interests as a consequence. ... Posted by Laura at 02:42 PM