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 : Actual left/right wing discussion -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Richnorth who wrote (4116)	11/3/2006 12:04:56 AM
From: KLP	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10087

No Richnorth, there are plenty of articles out there, from places that are not from CommonDreams, DemocratsUnderground, MoveOn, etc etc.... For instance: Here's one from the Middle East view.... From a ME view: U.S. POLICY TOWARD THE MIDDLE EAST IN CLINTON'S SECOND TERM* By Robert O. Freedman Middle East Review of International Affairs March 1999 meria.idc.ac.il Cached version for more ease in skimming.... 72.14.253.104

To: Richnorth who wrote (4116)	11/3/2006 12:12:06 AM
From: KLP	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10087

Here's an article from the Brownsville in 2000 before the election .... On Clinton/Gore administration and Middle East violence by Wm. Robert Johnston 29 October 2000 Dear Editor: The recent violence in the Middle East in part is a reflection of the Clinton/Gore administration's failed foreign policy. Consider: This administration has practically strong-armed Israel into a peace process which could compromise its security. Clinton interfered in Israel's last election to help defeat Netanyahu, has allowed his wife to make inflammatory statements regarding Palestinian status, and has been inconsistent in its diplomacy. Clinton has pushed Israel's current administration so far in the peace process that it is out of touch with Israeli public opinion and the reality of Israel's situation. Several Islamic countries remain committed to the utter destruction of Israel, and others have factions with the same goals. Syria is arming missiles with chemical weapons capable of striking anywhere in Israel. With the Palestinians led by a barely reformed terrorist sympathetic to Syria, Israel can relinquish little control and remain secure. In 1998 Clinton launched airstrikes on Sudanese civilians allegedly to retaliate for terrorism. The strike was premature, against the recommendation of advisors, and it turned out unjustified. Many other countries have interpreted this deadly attack as an attempt by Clinton to distract U.S. attention from the impeachment proceedings. This attack was illegal and has helped fuel the new interest in anti-American terrorism in the Middle East. The last eight years of policy towards Iraq has been a case study in inconsistency--from exhausting limited stocks of precision munitions in airstrikes to allowing Saddam Hussein to play games with U.N. inspectors. When the top American inspector reported Hussein's progress towards a nuclear capability, he resigned in protest of Clinton's lack of interest. Recent reports show that Gore made illegal agreements with Russia in 1995 to allow military sales to Iran. Iran is within a few years of having nuclear-armed missiles, thanks to Russia's help. Gore disregarded both the law and international security in assisting these transfers of nuclear and missile technology. In the last few months Israel has had to deploy a nuclear second-strike capability to deal with the threat of Iran. Recent events show that the Middle East is still dangerous, and one presidential candidate is part of the problem. U.S. interests and security are at risk in the years ahead, and the only candidate up to the challenge is George W. Bush. (printed in The Brownsville Herald 9 November 2000)